Nepal’s judiciary has formally approved the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for legal research, document management, and administrative support in courts, but has banned its use in sentencing and other decisions requiring judicial discretion.
The Supreme Court’s full bench on Thursday approved the Judicial Information and Communication Technology Policy 2026, paving the way for AI-assisted judicial services, as part of broader efforts to modernize Nepal’s courts.
The policy states that AI-based systems will be used to support tasks such as non-definitive document production, legal research and academic research. However, AI is specifically prohibited from being used to influence judicial decision-making or create judgments, petitions, or other documents that require human legal reasoning.
Under this policy, AI systems developed by internal or external organizations can only be used after assessing their reliability, transparency, potential bias, and operational framework and ensuring that they are suitable for judicial work.
The judiciary also plans to restructure its case management database so that court records and legal documents are stored in machine-readable format. This will enable the AI system to quickly search and analyze judgments and orders issued by the Supreme Court and courts across Nepal.
Section 5.2 of the policy states that AI will be introduced as an innovation tool in judicial procedures and its potential applications will be identified and implemented in a phased manner. Judiciary authorities are also planning awareness programs and training for judges, court staff, lawyers, and court users on both the benefits and risks of AI.
Supreme Court Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel said the policy is designed to ensure that AI does not replace judicial decision-making but only serves as a tool to assist people.
“We will take full advantage of technology to deliver justice more efficiently and quickly,” Paudel said. “However, AI cannot be used for tasks that require human judgment, such as creating court decisions, petitions, and judicial records.”
He said allowing AI to draft judgments could pose serious risks, as AI systems could cite the wrong or non-existent laws.
According to joint secretary Amit Upreti, who was involved in drafting the policy, the framework is Nepal’s formal first step towards identifying practical uses of AI in the judicial sector.
He said he would primarily focus on legal research.
“We have been careful to ensure that AI does not influence or pressure human decision-making,” Upreti said. “In matters that require judicial discretion and the application of specific legal provisions, AI may also generate references to laws that do not exist, potentially making its use inappropriate.”
The Supreme Court is preparing to begin using AI to help organize and manage court orders. It will also conduct training and awareness programs for members of the Nepal Bar Association, government lawyers, judicial and legal services staff, and court users.
Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma had promised in a parliamentary hearing before his appointment to promote e-courts and introduce policies to govern AI in the judiciary. He said the newly adopted policy fulfills that promise and will be a milestone in improving legal research, case management and other judicial functions.
“As information technology continues to evolve, the judiciary also needs to become familiar with technology and effectively leverage its advances,” Sharma said. “The Grand Chamber has adopted this policy for that purpose and will update it from time to time to meet future needs.”
The policy also enabled the judiciary to explore partnerships with government agencies, Nepal’s private sector, academic institutions, and international development partners to strengthen digital infrastructure.
It also provides that the Supreme Court’s Information Technology Committee will oversee decisions regarding research partnerships, innovation, and collaboration with private and academic institutions in the country.
Outlining the challenges facing Nepal’s judiciary, the policy notes that the country has yet to establish a long-term digital infrastructure strategy that can address weaknesses in information technology systems, human resources, and related institutional capacity.
