The Gujarat high court on Saturday issued a policy regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial and court administration, stating that AI cannot be used for adjudication processes, including judicial decision-making, drafting of judgments or orders and evaluation of evidence, holding judges personally responsible for all orders and judgments issued in their names.
The policy titled ‘Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial and Court Administration’, stated that while artificial intelligence can improve efficiency, research and administrative functioning, the core function of adjudication, must remain with judges.
“The core of adjudication, the weighing of evidence, interpretation of law, application of legal principles to facts, exercise of discretion, and delivery of reasoned decisions belongs exclusively to the domain of the human mind,” it stated.
The policy stated the prohibition of using AI for judicial decision-making, judicial reasoning, order or judgment drafting, bail or sentencing considerations, interpretation of facts, weighing of arguments, determination of rights and liabilities, interim orders or final judgments.
Additionally, the policy has strictly barred entering of confidential court data into public AI tools, including names and addresses of parties or witnesses, details of pending proceedings, privileged communications, sensitive personal data such as health or financial information and any evidence or documents filed in a case. It also prohibits using AI to fabricate or alter evidence or relying on AI-generated citations without independent verification from authoritative legal sources.
The policy is applied to the entire judicial and administrative framework under the Gujarat high court, including the high court registry and the district judiciary, which covers all subordinate courts under its jurisdiction. It applies to judicial officers, court staff, legal assistants, interns, trainees, para-legal volunteers and ministerial, administrative and technical staff and covers all court-related work, whether carried out within court premises or remotely.
This comes months after the Supreme Court took exception to a trial court order that cited fake judgments generated using AI, warning that decisions based on “non-existence” and “fake” judgments would amount to misconduct. “At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision-making,” the apex court said in its February 27 order.
The high court said the policy was necessary due to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence tools and the associated risks, including hallucinations, bias, confidentiality breaches and erosion of judicial independence. It said AI should only be used as support to decision-making and administrative efficiency tool, and not as a replacement for judicial reasoning.
“Each judge remains fully and personally responsible for every order, judgment, and observation issued in their name,” the policy stated.
The policy has been issued under Articles 225 and 227 deal with of the Constitution of India that deal with high court jurisdiction and supervisory powers over subordinate courts and must be read with the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the High Court of Gujarat Rules, 1993.
However, the high court has permitted limited use of AI for administrative and research purposes. These include legal research support such as retrieving judgments and identifying precedents, improving language and structure of drafts where the legal reasoning remains that of the judge, machine-assisted translation subject to verification, transcription of hearings, case management, scheduling, cause list management, statistical reporting and administrative tasks. AI may also be used to generate preliminary lists of relevant cases or statutes for further research, but this cannot replace standard legal databases such as SCC Online or AIR, the policy said.
The policy stated that all AI-generated case citations, statutory references and summaries must be independently verified against original judgments or statutes before use and machine translations and AI transcriptions must also be verified before being relied upon in court proceedings. It further states that the use of AI will not be a defence in cases of error, misconduct or negligence.
Violation of any provision of the policy will be treated as misconduct and may lead to departmental or disciplinary proceedings, apart from any civil or criminal liability under applicable laws. The high court said the policy will remain in force until revised and may be modified in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court or future policies on AI use in courts.
About the Author
