E-Paper
Kerala HC issues norms for use of AI by judges
the Kerala high court has issued a detailed policy regulating the use of AI tools by judges and staff across the state’s district judiciary.
Prefer HTon Google
Bengaluru : Before Kerala’s judges can turn to Artificial Intelligence (AI), they must run through a checklist: Is the tool officially approved? Is the task strictly non-judicial? Will there be human oversight at every step? And can the output be independently verified? These are not just technicalities but safeguards that underscore a fundamental principle that while technology may assist, it cannot replace the human mind in matters of justice.
In a first, the Kerala high court has issued a detailed policy regulating the use of AI tools by judges and staff across the state’s district judiciary, making it clear that while courts may embrace technology, human reasoning and intellect will remain non-negotiable in the process of justice delivery.
The new policy allows limited, supervised use of AI for administrative work, but bars its use entirely for “judicial decision-making”. Judges cannot rely on any generative AI tools, including “ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Deepseek,” to “arrive at findings, determine reliefs, or draft orders and judgments”.
Only AI tools expressly approved by the high court or the Supreme Court can be used, and even then, strictly for non-judicial tasks. Any deviation must be reported and documented, the circular says.
“AI tools shall not be used to arrive at any findings, reliefs, order or judgment under any circumstances, as the responsibility for the content and integrity of the judicial order, judgment or any part thereof lies fully with the judges,” the circular reads.
Every district court must maintain a detailed audit trail of AI use, including the specific tool deployed and the steps taken to verify its output. Translation tools powered by AI can be used, but the final output must be vetted either by qualified translators or the judges themselves.
The circular makes it clear that technology may assist, but it cannot think or judge, and the “responsibility” for every judicial order lies solely with the “judge who signs it”.
