Introduction
In a very important and controversial move that could change the very fundamental of how courts across India handle modern technology, the Kerala High Court has now become the first judicial institution in the country to release official guidelines for artificial intelligence use in the procedures. This historical policy, issued on July 19, 2025, sends a very clear message: while we understand that technology can assist justice delivery process but we have to understand that human judgment must remain at the heart of every legal decision cause it will generally have emotions and understanding of what is right and what is wrong morally too that the Artificial intelligence doesn’t understands yet.
What Makes This Policy So Important?
The “Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary” represents more than just any administrative guidelines but it’s a carefully and reasonable addition to the using of AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot in everyday work and for to ease the process, workload management too. With courts worldwide dealing with the similar challenges, Kerala’s approach offers valuable teachings for judicial systems everywhere and it can be very impactful.
The timing needed to be more crucial and it delivers right in the exact time. As AI tools become increasingly accessible to everyone, judges and court staff face new urge to use these technologies for quick and effective solutions. However, the Kerala High Court also recognized the serious risks with this trend poses to justice delivery and public trust in the legal system because there won’t be any human aspect in it if artificial intelligence is used and morality, soul may lack in an judgement.
The Core Principles: What Can and Cannot Be Done
Absolute Prohibition on Decision-Making
The policy’s most significant feature is its absolute clear stance on judicial decision-making or taking. Under any circumstances, AI tools can not be used to arrive at findings, grant relief, or draft judgments and orders for fair justice trials and human element added. The responsibility for every judicial decision must remain entirely with human judges and their decision making skills, ensuring that the clear understanding and ethical/moral considerations that define good judgment are never compromised for any time saving methods.
This prohibition also extends beyond just the final decisions. AI cannot and shouldn’t be used for legal reasoning and understanding, analysis of the case which leads to conclusions, or any step that directly or indirectly influences the result of legal proceedings. The message is very simple: machines can assist, but they cannot give verdicts.
Limited Assistive Use Only
While being absolutely strict about decision-making, the policy does also recognize AI’s potential benefits for administrative tasks. Courts can use approved AI tools for scheduling of the cases, managing on-court operations, and other day to day administrative functions but always under constant human supervision.
Even these limited uses of AI come with strict supervision and conditions. Every AI-generated output must be thoroughly and clearly verified/signed by qualified staff, and detailed records of these must be kept of when and how AI tools are getting used. This also ensures complete transparency and accountability in the process of the AI use.
Why These Restrictions Matter
Protecting Privacy and People’s Information
One of the policy’s most practical and reasonable concerns addresses the reality of how most AI tools operate and where it lies. Popular platforms like ChatGPT and similar services are cloud-based systems that may access and use the information people input into them and it cannot verify original sources it will take any post to justify it facts. For the courts which are handling sensitive legal matters, this poses serious confidentiality risks it may get leaked or hacked.
The policy ensures to prohibits the use of cloud-based AI services unless they have been specifically approved and vetted for security by the specific government authorities. This protects sensitive case information and maintains the confidentiality of the case that is the most essential to fair legal proceedings and clients liberty.
Addressing the Problem of AI Errors
The policy acknowledges a well-documented issue with current AI technology in this modern age: these tools frequently produce incorrect, incomplete, or biased results due to lack of understanding of this AI tools what is original work and what not. Legal professionals worldwide also have encountered situations where AI systems created many fake case citations or provided misleading and not usable legal information. These are the problems that could seriously damage court proceedings if left unchecked and unverified.
By requiring proper human verification of all AI outputs, the Kerala policy ensures that these technological technical errors don’t compromise the integrity and justiciability of legal processes.
Real-World Impact on Daily Court Operations
For Judges and Court Staff
The new guidelines and instructions which applies to everyone working in the Kerala’s district courts like – judges, staff members, interns, and law clerks. They must and it is mandatory that all have received training on the ethical, legal, and technical aspects of AI use, ensuring that each and every individual understands both the opportunities and risks involved and also knows how to deal with it.
This comprehensive approach also recognizes that AI use in courts isn’t just a judge’s responsibility but it affects everyone involved and around in the legal process. By providing clear guidelines and instructions for all court staff, the policy creates a consistent and efficient framework for responsible and justified technology use.
Enforcement and Accountability
The policy includes real life consequences for violations of the AI misuse. Anyone in the court who breaks these guidelines and instructions may face disciplinary action, showing that the court takes these restrictions seriously and how it impacts work culture . This enforcement mechanism also ensures that the policy has practical and reasonable impact rather than remaining just only theoretical guidance.
Learning from Global Experiences
The Kerala’s new policy originates from a broader universal and global point of view about AI in courts. There are some major countries like China have accepted the use of AI more widely in their judicial systems, others have adopted more limited approaches. Major International organizations like UNESCO have developed guidelines and instructions recognizing both the potential benefits and serious risks of AI in judicial settings like confidentiality.
The Kerala approach reflects lessons learned from various international experiences, particularly concerning thoughts about maintaining human supervision and protecting fundamental rights/basic rights in judicial processes. This balanced and rationalized perspective acknowledges AI’s potential while prioritizing the core values of human heart and emotions that make justice systems trustworthy.
Benefits and Challenges Ahead
Potential Advantages
When used with proper responsibility, AI can offer many significant benefits to the court systems. It can help with legal research, document Management and their tracking, proper language translation, and administrative efficiency. For a judicial system facing super heavy caseloads and resource scarcity, these advantages are substantial and very much required.
The policy’s approach allows courts to have these benefits while maintaining appropriate safeguards and protection from its disadvantages. By permitting AI use for administrative tasks and research support, courts can also improve their efficiency without compromising anything about their decision-making integrity.
Ongoing Challenges
However, implementing this policy effectively will require ongoing effort from everybody in the courts. Courts need to invest more in training programs related to AI, develop technical systems for monitoring AI use, and regularly update their guidelines and instructions as technology evolves and also having specific committee to deal with this matters. The policy also requires proper and careful selection also evaluating of approved AI tools, which very much demands technical expertise that many courts may currently lack but they will cover more job opportunities like this.
Additionally, as AI technology continues to grow and develop rapidly, the policy will need regular review, verification and updates to remain relevant and effective.
Setting a National Example
Kerala’s new and reformative initiative has already attracted attention from legal experts across India and internationally. As the first comprehensive and proper AI policy for Indian courts, it provides a legal model that other states and judicial systems can adapt to their own circumstances and their own conditions.
The policy also let it show that courts can accept and appreciate technological innovation while maintaining their core fundamental values and responsibilities. This balanced and rationalized approach may prove influential and be in attention always as other judicial systems worldwide wrestle with similar challenges.
Looking Forward: The Future of AI in Indian Courts
This policy represents and is the beginning of a longer debate and perspective about technology’s role in India’s legal system. As AI tools become more developed and well used , courts will need to continuously evaluate and adapt their approaches, instructions and guidelines.
The Kerala legal AI model suggests that successful AI addition in courts requires careful planning, clear guidelines, ongoing training of AI, and unwavering commitment to human supervision specific committee for it as well. These principles will likely remain relevant as technology continues to evolve and develop.
Conclusion: Balancing Innovation with Justice
Kerala High Court’s AI policy offers a very thoughtful activities for adding AI into judicial systems without losing sight of what makes justice meaningful that is human judgment, ethical/moral reasoning, and accountability to the people courts serve. By establishing clear and reasonable proper boundaries around AI use while remaining open to all the benefits like time management, the policy shows how legal institutions can modernize responsibly.
As other courts in India and around the world will consider their own approaches to AI, Kerala’s experience will provide them valuable insights and experience. The policy’s focuses on human supervision, transparency, and ethical/moral elements offers an important framework that could actually help judicial systems worldwide navigate the complex challenges like heavy loads of cases and opportunities that AI presents.
The success of this policy will ultimately depend on how well it balances and rationalizes innovation with the core fundamental values that make judicial systems trustworthy and effective also reasonable. Early indications and impacts shows that Kerala has found a very proper promising path forward one that other courts would do well to study and consider adapting to their own unique circumstances and mind-set.
References
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023 (India).
- Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India) § 72A.
- Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000 (India) § 43A.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872) (India) § 65B.
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors., (2014) 10 S.C.C. 473 (India).
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., AIR 2020 S.C. 4908 (India).
- Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2010) 7 S.C.C. 263 (India).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) (India) § 207.
- INDIA CONST. art. 21.
Author Bio- Anand Kumar Bose, is a student of Ideal Institute of Management and Technology and School of Law under Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha,4th Year (B.A.LL.B(Hons).
