Artificial intelligence can’t substitute judge’s decision-making: SC

Through an important judgement, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has recommended framing of comprehensive guidelines regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the judicial system, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

While authoring the 18-page verdict, Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, however, remarked that the AI is only an assistant “tool” which cannot be considered as an alternative to a judge’s decision-making.

“AI in no way should be considered as an alternative to the independence of human decision-making. This is only to facilitate the smart legal research,” Justice Mansoor Shah said, adding “Judicial Reforms Committee and Law and Justice Commission should frame these guidelines.”

Justice Mansoor Shah also highlighted the potential benefits of AI technologies such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek in enhancing judicial efficiency and decision-making capacity.

The SC decision called for preparing the guidelines for how far the AI can be used in the judicial system. “The AI can be helpful in writing judgements, research and preparation of drafts. ChatGPT and DeepSeek can enhance judicial efficiency,” the SC judge observed.

The SC judgement says that judges around the world have acknowledged using AI to assist in drafting judgments and managing caseloads, emphasizing that Pakistan must move in the same direction while ensuring transparency and ethical use.

The judge writes “In Pakistan’s overburdened courts, the integration of AI presents a promising path to operational reform, provided its adoption remains grounded in principled constitutional limits. Under Articles 10A2 and 37(d)3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the right to fair and expeditious justice must not be rendered illusory. Within this constitutional framework, the thoughtful adoption of AI can serve as a viable instrument for access to timely justice and alleviating systemic backlogs.”

“We notice that Commercial GenAI platforms like ChatGPT, Copilot, and DeepSeek have drawn increasing interest from judges around the world who seek new ways to conduct legal research, drafting, and decision support. In 2023, a Colombian judge expressly announced that ChatGPT was consulted when drafting a judicial ruling.

“By 2025, appellate judges in Washington D.C. publicly cited ChatGPT in their official opinions. More recently, a judge in Pakistan revealed using ChatGPT to adjudge a case both in a civil and a criminal matter, triggering a debate whether commercial AI is appropriate for official judgments.

“The promise and potential of AI to enhance the efficiency and working of the justice system cannot be ignored any longer. We find this to be a fit case to explore the use of AI by the judiciary in order to actualize the constitutional mandate of Articles 10A and 37(d) of the Constitution.

“Key applications can include: (i) Smart Legal Research: AI tools can rapidly process vast legal databases to extract relevant precedents, statutory provisions, and scholarly commentary, providing judges with timely, contextually rich legal material. Smart Legal Research is an emerging discipline that applies AI technologies to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of judicial research.

“AI tools such as Westlaw, LexisNexis AI tools, Casetext: CARA AI & CoCounsel, Bloomberg Law, vLex, SUPACE, Judge-GPT, and AI-assisted writing platforms like BriefCatch, WordRake, PerfectIt, Clearbrief and ChatGPT are increasingly integrated into judicial workflows, offering substantial support in legal research and drafting. These tools streamline processes by enhancing efficiency, clarity, and precision, and can improve textual quality by detecting errors and refining structure. Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), Islamabad has taken a momentous stride in judicial innovation by introducing Judge-GPT, an LLM-based AI mechanism devised in collaboration with ETH Zurich. Approximately 1500 judges within the District Judiciary currently utilize this technology, which is tailored to conform with Pakistan’s legislative framework, procedural statutes, and domestic jurisprudence rather than mirroring any commercial prototype.

“Some of the AI-assisted writing platforms are: BriefCatch, WordRake, PerfectIt, Clearbrief and ChatGPT (iii) Comparative Jurisprudence: With increased access to international legal databases, judges can engage with foreign jurisprudence more efficiently, enabling domestic legal thought to evolve in dialogue with comparative and international law. (iv) Decision-Making Support: AI assists in organizing complex case files, identifying key legal questions, and summarizing voluminous records, thereby enabling more informed and timely decision-making. (v) promoting jurisprudential uniformity, AI promotes predictability and stability in legal outcomes, reinforcing public confidence in the judiciary. These functions establish AI as a valuable supplementary resource. However, AI tools remain subordinate to judicial reasoning and must never be mistaken as a substitute for the exercise of judicial conscience, discretion, or interpretive judgment. It is strongly underlined that the judicial role requires that AI tools be viewed as supplementary aids rather than substitutes for human reasoning. The responsibility for ensuring the accuracy, ethical integrity, and confidentiality of judicial determinations rests entirely with the judge.”

A note of caution

The judge writes “It must be unequivocally affirmed that AI is not, and must never become a substitute for judicial decision-making. Adjudication is a constitutional function rooted in legal reasoning, institutional independence, and human empathy, qualities no automated system can replicate. The human part of justice lies in its moral and emotional core, the qualities that AI can never replicate. While AI may process data and identify legal patterns, it lacks the capacity for compassion, ethical discernment, and the nuanced understanding of human suffering. Judges, juries, and lawyers bring empathy to their decisions, weighing not just the letter of the law but the spirit of fairness, the context of actions, and the possibility of redemption.

"Justice requires discretion, knowing when to show mercy, when to challenge unjust laws, and when to adapt to evolving societal values. It demands moral courage to uphold equity over rigid logic and the wisdom to balance punishment with rehabilitation. Most importantly, justice must be seen as legitimate by those it serves, and this legitimacy stems from the belief that a fellow human has truly listened, understood, and acted with conscience. Without these irreplaceable human elements, justice becomes a mechanical exercise, devoid of the very humanity it seeks to protect. Therefore, delegating core adjudicative functions to AI would constitute a dereliction of judicial duty constituting misconduct and compromise foundational principles such as impartiality and due process.

"The courtroom is not a site for algorithmic governance but a space for reasoned, principled deliberation, attentive to both legal nuance and the lived experiences of litigants. Judges must maintain vigilant oversight to ensure that AI remains an assistive tool, not a decision-maker. While such engagement demonstrates a progressive outlook, it also underscores the urgent need to delineate clear boundaries. The deployment of AI within judicial contexts especially those implicating rights, liberties, and access to justice must be approached with caution. Though AI may enhance efficiency and consistency, it cannot replicate the normative judgment, ethical reflection, or contextual sensitivity essential to the act of judging.

"The dignity of the judicial role lies not in the mechanical generation of outcomes, but in the deliberative process of reasoning, listening, and responding, a task that remains inherently and irreducibly human. Judicial reasoning involves not only logic but also humanity. It requires attentiveness, moral courage, and the ability to question unjust laws or outdated precedents.

"By contrast, AI operates within the constraints of existing data and lacks the creative imagination and jurisprudential foresight necessary to develop new legal doctrines or safeguard emergent rights. Comparative jurisdictions have cautiously explored AI-assisted adjudication.” 

Reporter Amanat Gishkori