AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court has barred the use of Artificial Intelligence for any form of decision-making, judicial reasoning, order drafting or judgment preparation, bail and sentencing considerations, or any substantive adjudicatory process. According to the high court’s AI policy, unveiled on Saturday at a conference of district judiciary judges in Gujarat, AI should be used to enhance the speed and quality of justice delivery, not as a substitute for judicial reasoning, according to news agency PTI. As per the policy, these technologies “carry substantial risks — including hallucinations, bias, confidentiality breaches, and erosion of judicial independence — that must be managed with care and institutional discipline”. It further states that by restricting AI to the narrowest possible role—limited to anonymised, metadata-driven case allocation and research of legal principles—“human supremacy in justice delivery is reaffirmed and limited technological assistance is harnessed to reduce administrative imbalances that might otherwise delay access to justice”.“Broadly, Artificial Intelligence shall not be used—directly or indirectly—for any aspect of judicial decision, adjudication, reasoning, application of law, interpretation of facts, weighing of arguments, determination of rights/liabilities, sentencing, bail, interim orders, or final judgment,” the policy document says.
The policy also makes it clear that AI cannot be used to determine facts, law, or operative orders in any judicial proceeding. It further prohibits its use for sorting, classifying evidence, organising evidentiary material, or performing any task involving the evaluation or categorisation of proof. AI cannot be used to author, generate, or substantially compose any judgment, final order, or binding legal ruling, even if it is later reviewed by a judge, the document states. It also bars the input of names, addresses, or identifying details of parties, witnesses, or advocates, as well as details of pending proceedings or unreported orders, privileged communications, confidential legal strategies, and sensitive personal data. The policy strictly prohibits the use of AI to generate, fabricate, embellish, or alter evidence in any form. It also disallows the use of AI-generated citations, case references, or statutory provisions without independent verification from authoritative primary sources, along with drafting, correcting, or summarising any office note or submission. A judge remains personally responsible for every order, judgment, and observation issued under their name, and this responsibility cannot be delegated, shared, or diluted through the use of any AI tool, the policy emphasises. It further stresses that every court officer is personally accountable for the accuracy and appropriateness of any AI-generated content used in the course of official duties.“AI in judiciary should be designed as a decision-support and administrative efficiency tool, not as a replacement for judicial reasoning.
With proper safeguards—such as transparency, human supervision, and protection of confidential information—AI can significantly strengthen case management and improve the speed and quality of justice delivery,” it states. The policy mandates that a qualified human officer must review, verify, and take responsibility for any AI-generated output before it is acted upon, filed, published, or communicated.
It also requires that AI-generated content, including case citations and statutory references, be independently verified against authoritative primary sources. At the same time, the policy allows judicial officers and court staff to use AI tools to improve productivity, reduce administrative burden, and enhance access to justice, while safeguarding judicial independence and the sanctity of decision-making. AI tools are permitted for administrative and productivity-related tasks, including code generation or automation for IT department work, creating presentations or templates for internal training, and drafting or refining circulars and notices based on information already in the public domain. AI may also be used for legal research, retrieval or analysis of judgments, identification of precedents, statutory interpretation, or other preparatory intellectual work supporting adjudication, “but with all human conscience and subject to verification by applying mind”.
