Gujarat HC bars AI use in decision-making, judgment drafting
The Gujarat High Court has banned the use of Artificial Intelligence for any decision-making, judicial reasoning, order drafting or decision making, bail assessments or any other merits proceedings.
According to the apex court’s AI policy announced at the district judicial judges’ conference in Gujarat on Saturday, April 4, 2026, AI should be used to enhance the speed and quality of administration of justice rather than replacing judicial reasoning.
According to the policy, these technologies “carry significant risks, including hallucinations, bias, breaches of privacy, and the erosion of judicial independence, that must be managed with caution and institutional discipline.”
By confining AI to the narrowest role imaginable, to fully anonymized, metadata-driven case allocation and investigation of legal principles, it says “human supremacy in the delivery of justice is reaffirmed, utilizing limited technological assistance to reduce administrative imbalances that might otherwise delay access to justice.”
According to the policy document, “In general, Artificial Intelligence shall not be used, directly or indirectly, for judicial decision, trial, judgment, application of law, interpretation of facts, evaluation of claims, determination of rights/obligations, sentencing, bail, interim orders or any aspect of final judgment.”
It also says that AI will not be used to find facts, laws, or modus operandi in any judicial proceeding, and will not be used for any task that involves sorting, classifying, organizing evidentiary material, or evaluating or classifying evidence.
According to the policy document, AI cannot be used to write, create or substantially create any judgment, final decision or binding legal decision, even if it is subsequently reviewed by a judge.
Names, addresses or identifying information of parties, witnesses or lawyers, details of pending litigation or unreported orders, privileged communications or confidential legal strategies, and sensitive personal data cannot be entered.
AI will not be used to create, fabricate, embellish or alter evidence in any form using AI-generated quotations, case references or legal rulings without independent verification from authoritative primary sources; drafting, editing, or summarizing any office memorandum or presentation is also prohibited. The judge is personally responsible for every order, judgment and observation made under his or her name and this cannot be delegated, shared or diminished through the use of any AI tool.
Each court officer is personally responsible for the accuracy and appropriateness of any AI-generated content used in the performance of their official duties, emphasizing the following policy: “AI in the judiciary should be designed as a decision support and administrative efficiency tool, not as a replacement for judicial reasoning. With appropriate measures such as transparency, human control and protection of confidential information, AI can significantly strengthen case management and increase the speed and quality of the delivery of justice.”
The policy requires a qualified human officer to review, verify and be accountable for any output produced by AI before it is acted upon, filed, published or transmitted. It is stated that AI-generated content, including case citations and legal references, must be independently verified against authoritative primary sources before use.
At the same time, this policy allows judicial officers and court staff to leverage artificial intelligence tools to increase productivity, reduce administrative burden, and increase access to justice, while preserving the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of judicial decision-making.
The policy allows for AI tools for a variety of administrative and productivity tasks, code generation or automation for IT department tasks, creation of presentations or templates for internal training purposes, and the preparation and development of publicly available circulars and notices about them.
Artificial intelligence is also permitted to be used for legal research, access or analysis of judgments, identification of precedents, legal interpretation or any preparatory intellectual work supporting the judgment; but “subject only to verification by all human conscience and exercise of reason”.
It was published – 05 April 2026 07:54 IST
