Need of the modern times, some might suggest; yet when technology enters the courtroom, the real question is not merely one of efficiency, it is whether the rule of law is upheld.
Soon after the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee, in its 57th meeting, issued the National Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in judicial institutions, the development began making headlines on Wednesday, April 29, 2026. The integration of AI into Pakistan’s judicial landscape was foreseeable, and it marks a bold step for Pakistan’s legal technology amid growing pressures.
In theory, such an intervention could reduce routine adjournments and provide overburdened judges with quicker access to relevant law. For litigants who endure years of waiting for hearings, even minor efficiency improvements are substantial. These gains significantly impact their livelihoods and faith in the justice system.
Pakistan’s heavily backlogged courts, with over 2.2 million pending cases in 2025, may see some relief as AI is introduced as an assistive tool rather than a substitute for judicial decision-making. The NJPMC highlights include a human-centric approach that aims to use AI as an assisting tool and to address conjectures regarding its total replacement.
While the foundational highlight may seem promising, ethical safeguards, data protection, practical applications and capacity building must prove themselves amid Pakistan’s judicial realities. Ethical transparency sounds reassuring yet invites scepticism. Pakistan’s courts have long struggled with accountability, as seen in the Pakistan Steel Mills denationalisation saga, where oversight mechanisms buckled under political pressure despite Supreme Court intervention.
Courts are constitutionally obligated to provide reasoned judgments, yet many AI tools function through “black box” processes whose internal reasoning remains inaccessible even to their operators
AI bias risks eroding Article 25 equality if datasets mirror societal inequities. The Shirin Munir judgment condemned selective enforcement that protected “less meritorious boys over competent women” as unconstitutional; algorithmic systems trained on such precedents could entrench, rather than remedy, discrimination.
In a recent judgment, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah described AI as something that may “serve the judiciary, but not substitute it,” reminding us that “the court is not a machine…It is a moral space.” That insight sits uneasily with any move towards opaque, data-driven tools that cannot be interrogated in the same way as a human judge.
The COMPAS algorithm used in the United States drew criticism over alleged racial bias in sentencing assessments, illustrating how technology can perpetuate existing institutional prejudice under the banner of neutrality.
Further, data protection pledges iron-clad security, yet the country's track record breeds doubt. Pakistan still lacks a fully operational data protection regime, as seen from the dust-laden Personal Data Protection Bill 2023.
Without massive infrastructure upgrades, AI handling sensitive case files risks breaches similar to the 2023 district court cyber leaks, potentially violating fundamental privacy rights under Article 14.
Equally troubling is the opacity of algorithmic systems. Courts are constitutionally obligated to provide reasoned judgments, yet many AI tools function through “black box” processes whose internal reasoning remains inaccessible even to their operators.
United Kingdom judicial guidance tells judges not to rely on unexplained outputs, keeping them personally responsible for anything they adopt. Pakistan demands explainable AI standards to preserve judicial daylight.
The true challenge, however, lies beyond policy announcements. While High Courts may adapt relatively quickly, lower courts continue to face severe infrastructural and digital disparities. Success clings more to the efficacy of implementation than to the existence of guidelines.
Failure risks drowning this reform in the vast ocean of Pakistan’s judicial disappointments. Whether this opportunity evolves into meaningful reform or another unrealised promise will depend on the vigilance of courts, policymakers and the legal community itself.
Technology may assist the administration of justice, but the legitimacy of courts will ultimately rest not in algorithms, but in a firm commitment to constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the rule of law.