AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has prohibited the use of artificial intelligence in any form of decision-making, legal reasoning, drafting orders or preparing judgments, considering bail or sentencing or in substantive court proceedings. According to news agency PTI, the high court’s AI policy, announced at a meeting of district judicial judges in Gujarat on Saturday, says AI should be used to enhance the speed and quality of judicial administration, rather than as a replacement for judicial reasoning. The policy states that these technologies “involve significant risks, including hallucinations, bias, breaches of confidentiality, and erosion of judicial independence, and must be managed with care and organizational discipline.” It also states that by limiting the role of AI to the narrowest possible scope (limited to anonymized, metadata-driven case allocation and the study of legal principles), “the primacy of humans in the delivery of justice is reaffirmed and limited technical assistance is leveraged to reduce administrative imbalances that can delay access to justice.”“Broadly speaking, artificial intelligence shall not be used directly or indirectly in any aspect of judicial decision-making, judgment, reasoning, application of law, interpretation of facts, weighing of arguments, determination of rights/liability, sentencing, bail, interim orders, or final judgment,” the policy document states. This policy also makes clear that AI cannot be used to determine fact, law, or enforcement orders in any judicial proceeding. Additionally, it is prohibited from being used to classify, categorize, organize evidence, or perform any task related to the evaluation or classification of evidence. The document states that AI cannot be used to create, produce, or substantially constitute a judgment, final order, or binding legal judgment, even if it is later considered by a judge. You are also prohibited from entering names, addresses, identifying details of parties, witnesses, or advocates, details of pending proceedings or unreported orders, privileged communications, confidential legal strategies, or sensitive personal data. This policy strictly prohibits the use of AI to generate, fabricate, embellish, or falsify evidence in any form. Also prohibited is the use of AI-generated citations, case references, or legal provisions, and the use of drafting, revising, or summarizing office memos or submissions without independent verification from an authoritative primary source. Judges remain personally responsible for all orders, judgments and findings issued in their name, and this responsibility cannot be delegated, shared or diluted by the use of AI tools, the policy emphasizes. Additionally, it emphasizes that all court employees are personally responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of AI-generated content used in the course of their official duties.“AI in the judiciary should be designed as a decision support and administrative efficiency tool, not as a replacement for judicial reasoning. With appropriate safeguards such as transparency, human oversight, and protection of sensitive information, AI can significantly enhance case management and improve the speed and quality of justice delivery. ” This policy requires that AI-generated output must be reviewed, verified, and held accountable by qualified human personnel before it is executed, filed, published, or communicated. It also requires that AI-generated content, including case law citations and legal references, be independently verified against trusted primary sources. At the same time, the policy will enable 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 can be used for administrative and productivity-related tasks, such as code generation and automation for IT department work, creating presentations and templates for internal training, and drafting and revising circulars and notices based on information already in the public domain. AI could also be used for legal research, retrieving and analyzing decisions, identifying precedents, interpreting laws, or other preparatory intellectual work in support of decisions, “but only with respect for all human consciences and with intellectual validation.”
