Pakistan's National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC) issued the National Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions on 29 April 2026. The framework was approved at the committee's 57th meeting and sets a national standard for how courts may use AI, while leaving each high court to decide the details of rollout.

What courts may and may not do with AI

The guidelines treat AI strictly as an assistive tool. Courts may use it for case management, legal research and document processing, but it must not replace judicial decision-making. Judges remain the ultimate arbiters, and the framework requires safeguards against bias, with emphasis on explainability and accountability.

Who the new standard covers

The framework applies to judges and court staff across the country. It also carries data-protection commitments for litigants and other stakeholders, requiring strict adherence to privacy and data security standards. The text was prepared through a consultative process led by the National Judicial Automation Committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and it incorporated feedback from all high courts and expert institutions.

How each high court will implement it

Although the guidelines set a unified national standard, they respect the administrative and judicial autonomy of the high courts. Each jurisdiction may tailor implementation to its own needs and capacities, which means the practical rollout is expected to vary by province and by court.

What affected legal workers should do next

  • Watch for implementation rules or circulars from the relevant high court, since no single commencement date has been published.
  • Complete the structured AI training once it is offered to judges and court staff.
  • Use AI only for assistance and verify its output; judicial decisions remain the judge's responsibility.

The pages reviewed do not state a single countrywide effective date, deadlines for high-court implementation, or any enforcement measures. They also do not establish whether separate guidance exists for lawyers in private practice, since the framework addresses judicial institutions.