The implications of using AI in adjudicating legal cases

In recent times, the vast expansion and regular use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, more specifically Large Language Model (LLM) chatbots, such as ChatGPT, have gained immense popularity due to their free availability. Therefore, clear and comprehensive legislation is urgent to draw boundaries for arbitrary and irresponsible use of such modern AI technology. In the absence of standalone legislation, at least there needs to be a policy or guidelines for the judiciary.

Although late, this trend of adopting policies is now visible in various professional domains in Bangladesh. For example, the draft National Artificial Intelligence Policy 2026-2030 has already been developed and is now awaiting finalisation. Again, earlier in August this year, the cabinet division issued a notification warning that government employees should use AI cautiously in official functions so that third parties do not get hold of confidential and important government information. On the other hand, in July, Bangladesh Bank also warned against the application of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek, etc., for official functions, including writing notes, analysing data, or preparing reports. Unfortunately, no such policy has been formulated yet for the judicial sector.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Under such circumstances, we may look into our Constitution for answers. Article 107 of the Constitution of Bangladesh empowers the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (SCOB) to make rules for the procedure and conduct of proceedings for both the divisions (i.e., Appellate Division and High Court Division) as well as the subordinate courts. Pursuant to the said provision, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 and the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988, authorises the apex court to promulgate rules regarding legal procedures. The same instruments may be utilised in regulating the use of AI in legal adjudication.

In fact, such exercise of rule-making power by the apex court of any country is very common. We can take examples of several countries, where the highest courts or judicial bodies have already adopted policies, directions, guidance, and guidelines for judges, lawyers, litigants, and court staff on the ethical, responsible and appropriate use of AI in their courts. The list includes India (draft), Pakistan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and so on. Although there are still questions about the effectiveness of these guidelines, these countries have, at least, a policy to regulate AI in the legal field. In addition, the regulatory bodies of lawyers in some countries have also issued similar policies.

However, alongside the impropriety of using AI tools in adjudication, I would like to argue why it should also be considered illegal as well. It is true that there is no law currently in force in Bangladesh that specifically prohibits the application of AI to write judgments or to judge court cases. But the absence of such specific legislation does not legitimise using AI in adjudication or writing judgments. Rather, until the existing procedural laws, constitutional principles, and established legal norms are changed, it can be interpreted that getting justice from a human judge is embedded in the right to a fair trial enshrined in Articles 31 and 35 of the Constitution.

Indeed, the Constitution of Bangladesh has clearly established the SCOB and vested judicial power in its judges. Therefore, it follows that only human judges can hear, interpret, adjudicate, and deliver enforceable verdicts. Moreover, the independence of the judiciary is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. If AI is integrated into the judicial landscape without due care and diligence, the independence of the judiciary may face challenges. Furthermore, 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 It also hampers 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 to being a support tool for administrative tasks and excludes core adjudication.

In conclusion, it can be said that even if there is no legislation or policy prohibiting judging or writing judgments with AI, it should not be considered lawful due to its conflict with the basic principles of the constitution, the existing procedural laws, and long-established legal tradition. As a result, any move towards fully automated or AI-driven judicial decision-making would require necessary constitutional amendments and a radical change to current judicial processes.

The writer is a Doctoral Researcher on the Application of AI in Judicial Decision-making at the School of Law, University of Galway, Ireland.