Why a Policy on AI is Urgent for the Judiciary in Bangladesh

AI is being used all over the world in healthcare, medicine, business, engineering, education, law enforcement, military and even in various governmental administrative decision-making processes. The judiciary is no longer lagging behind in this regard. Judges, court staff, lawyers, and self-represented litigants are also applying AI tools for numerous needs and using it in legal proceedings. AI tools have potentials to modernize the judicial proceedings and automating administrative tasks. 

Some judges have already created discussion by applying popular AI chatbot like ChatGPT in judicial decision-making processes. Lawyers also often present references, arguments, or precedents prepared through AI in court that do not actually exist. Consequently, the regulatory bodies of lawyers and the judicial bodies in different countries have drawn boundaries to regulate the unwanted and unethical use of AI in the judicial proceedings. Because the unplanned, improper and unbridled application of AI systems in pleadings, arguments, evidence analysis or in the judgments can bring severe consequences. As a result, a crisis of trust among citizens about the justice system can be appeared and questions relating to the independence, transparency, accountability, legitimacy etc., regarding the judiciary may be arisen. 

However, it is perhaps not possible to completely avoid the use of AI in the legal profession during the widespread rise of it. Rather, its specific, planned, ethical and moderate use can be advantageous for both the legal professionals and litigants to reduce their effort, time and cost in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, if a judge or lawyer applies such technology without knowing the limitations, or without having adequate training, the outcomes can be dangerous and potential to create misperception, amplify cost, effort and delay.

Recently, the Supreme Court of India (SCOI) noticed that cases had been determined by referring to non-existent and fictional precedents derived from AI. A junior civil judge from Vijayawada city of Andhra Pradesh took aid from AI chatbot to adjudicate a property related suit. Again, in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. same incident was identified by SCOI.

Therefore, the court has warned about the legal consequences of such unintended use of AI in judicial decisions. The apex court held that the judgment has now become a cause of considerable institutional concern in India not because of the decision taken on the merits of the case, but because of the unethical use of AI in the trial and adjudication process. The highest court in India further opined that the judgment given based on a fictitious judgment will not only be seen as a judicial error but will also be considered as judicial misconduct. 

To prevent the unwanted use of AI in judicial decisions, the SCOI has already formulated a draft guideline for judges. There is also a committee in the Supreme Court working on how AI can be used in the judicial systems in India. The SCOI has planned to start using AI technology in case listing, scheduling of hearings and bench allocations. There is a lack of transparency in case listing in our country too and irregularities are being seen in some places. Even allegations of corruption have come to the fore regarding case listing. In that context, specific and planned use of AI technology can bring transparency and reduce corruption.

A survey conducted by the Northwestern University and released on 30 March, revealed that more than 60 percent judges are using popular AI tools at least once in their judicial work. Among them, around 22 percent confirmed they used AI daily or weekly in their duties although they didn’t receive any training regarding the prospects and challenges of such AI systems from court administration.

Not only judges, but also lawyers are employing AI tools uncritically in court pleadings. In multiple occasions, information obtained from these tools are being exported directly to case documents without verifying the authenticity and as a result, repealed laws or overruled judgments, fictitious information are being incorporated into those documents. According to a global database in this regard, as of September 14, 2,041 cases have been identified worldwide where generative AI has created misleading or non-existent contents in court adjudication. A significant constraint of chatbots like ChatGPT is the random production of fictitious information often called as AI hallucination with great confidence and present them convincingly. Besides, AI chatbots can present biased, discriminatory, unrepresentative outputs. Moreover, AI lacks the fundamental human qualities required to conduct legal proceedings.

A Federal Court in West Virginia has recently issued an order to consider the use of AI by the defence to review sensitive discovery (e.g., witness info, medical records, footage involving minors). It mandates defence counsel to obtain the government’s written approval before inputting such materials into any AI tool. The counsel must ensure that no information will be stored for training purposes, or be shared with third parties, or be retained after a case is over. That reminds about the increasing judicial awareness of the potential of AI to affect confidentiality and the integrity of discovery.

Therefore, it is very important to know when and how AI should be used in court, along with its operational functions and challenges. AI tools may reduce human effort, cost or time in specific clerical or administrative tasks. However, if the own intelligence of lawyers or judges becomes dependent on AI, then the results will be dire, and the cost will be paid not only to the litigants but also to the entire population. AI can never be a substitute for the intelligence of a lawyer or judge. It can generate language with fluency although it cannot take over judgment.

Accordingly, several countries including the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Hong Kong and more have already adopted and implemented guidelines or practice directions as to how AI systems can be applied in the legal profession. Although there is debate about how effective those guidelines are, and research on those debates is also ongoing. But in Bangladesh, the Bar Council, the regulatory body for lawyers, and the Supreme Court have not yet provided any guidelines or training for lawyers, judges and court staff to use AI. Although so far, no allegations have been revealed that anyone in the country has presented fictitious references obtained through AI in the court. But that certainly does not mean that lawyers and judges are not using AI tools in our country.

Although the initiative to formulate a national AI policy is underway; but it is urgent to adopt a separate policy specifically related to the use of AI for the judiciary. Hence, before the burden of judging is transferred to AI, or before a major disaster occurs in judicial sector, it is urgent for policymakers to actively think about practice directions or policies on the use of AI in courts now. At the same time, extensive research, discussion, allocation of budget and useful practical actions are obvious on how modern technology like AI can be used to prevent corruption, enhance the quality of services, reduce the suffering of litigants, ensure transparency and accountability, reduce the cost, complexity and delay of cases etc., while maintaining the basic principles of justice. We should always bear in mind that courts are not only the forum to resolve disputes; rather they uphold human rights, represent the rule of law and make democratic institutions accountable.

Published in Ajker Patrika as op-ed on 4 April 2026 on page 4.

Published in the Daily Asian Age as op-ed on 16 September 2026 on page 7.  

Why Judging with AI is not Legal

The Chief Justice (CJ) of Bangladesh remarked in the inaugural session of an event on August 29 that, ‘You cannot write a verdict with AI.’ ‘It is inappropriate, may be not illegal, but definitely not ethical.’ The Law Minister also recently opined that Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist in judicial proceedings although judges cannot rely on it for analysing evidence. Judges do not formulate their decisions solely based on data, he added. Further, he commented that judges must meticulously examine evidence by applying their own concise, intellect, wisdom, foresight, and integrity to ensure justice. They have rightly recognised the issues relating to AI and wisely expressed their view that there should be a law to regulate the extent and manner of the use of AI. 

There is no room for disagreement with these thoughtful statements of them. In recent times, the vast expansion and regular application of AI tools, especially generative artificial intelligence and more specifically Large Language Model (LLM) chatbots such as ChatGPT have gained immense popularity due to their free availability. Therefore, a clear and comprehensive legislation is urgent to draw boundaries for arbitrary and irresponsible incorporation in daily use without properly knowing the functions and limitations of modern AI technology. In the absence of a standalone legislation, at least there needs to be a policy or guidelines for the judiciary. 

Article 107 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh empowers the Supreme Court (SC) to make rules for the procedure and conduct of proceedings for both the divisions (i.e., Appellate Division and High Court Division) and subordinate courts. Hence, according to the Bangladesh Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 and the Bangladesh Supreme Court (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988, the apex court have the authority to promulgate rules regarding legal procedures. In several countries, the highest courts or judicial bodies have already adopted policies/practice directions/guidance/guidelines for judges, lawyers, litigants, and court staff as to the ethical, responsible and appropriate use of AI in their courts, including India (draft), Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines (proposed), South Korea, Taiwan, Morocco, Ireland, Israil, Kenya (draft), South Africa (draft), the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Colombia, New Zealand, Belize, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Italy, Spain, Paraguay and so on. Although there are questions about the effectiveness of these guidelines but at least these countries have a policy to regulate AI in the legal field. In addition, the regulatory bodies of lawyers in some countries have issued policies for them. 

Although it is understandable from the mentioned speech of the CJ that AI is also being used in the legal profession of Bangladesh. Like any other profession, this emerging technology can be utilised in the legal setor as well, but it is important to have an institutional stance on where, when, how and up to what extent it can be employed. 

Now, let me come to the CJ’s point of whether writing of judgments with AI is legal or illegal. In his speech, the CJ did not mean only writing judgments, instead he also meant adjudicating the disputes in the court. This is clear from the subsequent part of his speech where he says that he himself combines three techniques in determining disputes, e.g., facts (conflicting points); determination, application and interpretation of the law(s) and application of the conscience or morality; which in his words is significant and absent in AI.

It is true that there is no law currently in force in Bangladesh that specifically prohibits the application of AI to write judgments or judging court cases. But that alone does not mean it is not illegal to adjudicate or deliver judgments solely with AI. Until the existing procedural laws, constitutional principles and established legal norms are changed, it can be assumed that getting justice from a human judge is embedded in the right to fair trial. The Constitution of Bangladesh has clearly established the SC and vested judicial power in its judges. Therefore, only human judges can hear, interpret, adjudicate and deliver enforceable verdicts. Thus, a new legislation is required to empower AI to legalise trial by that.

Moreover, the independence of the judiciary is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. If AI is integrated to judge, the independence of the judiciary will be definitely compromised. Further, judging by AI is against the principle of separation of powers enumerated in Article 22 of the Constitution. The challenge of judicial decision-making through AI also violates several fundamental principles of justice including the obligation to provide a reasoned decision, so that the aggrieved party can seek redress against such reasoning before an appellate court, and the exercise of judicial discretion and equity along with considering relevant context(s). For these reasons, the abstract concept of an AI or robot judge has already given rise to deep constitutional concerns in numerous jurisdictions. Presently, the use of AI in courts in liberal democracies is mainly confined as support tool to administrative tasks excluding core adjudication.

In conclusion, it can be said that even if it is not explicitly prohibited by law, judging or writing judgments with AI is in no way legal in our legal system due to its involvement with the basic structure of the constitution, the existing procedural laws, and established long legal tradition. As a result, any move towards a fully automated or AI-driven judicial decision-making requires necessary constitutional amendments and a radical change of current judicial processes.

Published in the Law and Our Rights Page of The Daily Star on 9 September 2026.

Published in the Weekly Shampratik Deshkal as Op-ed on 17 September on page 3.

Published in the Desh Rupantor as op-ed on 19 September on page 4.

Published in the Daily Ittefaq as Op-ed on 22 September 2026 on page 9.