The judgment will help uphold fairness, accuracy, and institutional integrity in judicial work
Syed Adnan Hashmi
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (JKLHC), on 6 June 2026, delivered a landmark judgment about the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by judicial officers in the Union Territory. The Court was dealing with an order of a trial court which was under challenge before it. The full name of the judgment is Principal, Woodland House School, Shivpora, Sonwar Srinagar v. Shakeel Ahmed Malik, wherein the trial court’s order was challenged before the High Court.
During the proceedings, a shocking revelation came before the High Court: the citations of two principal judgments on which the trial court had relied were found to be incorrect, and one of the judgments used by the trial court in its order was not traceable. This was confirmed when the Court undertook an independent inquiry into the matter.
Thereafter, the Court did not limit its order to the dispute before it but went a step further and issued necessary guidelines in the postscript of the judgment. Presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, the Court emphasised that the correctness, accuracy, and authenticity of the contents of a judicial order rest solely upon the authoring judge. The use of technological tools, therefore, must be accompanied by appropriate caution and rigorous verification so as to ensure that judicial determinations are founded only upon genuine and verifiable legal authorities.
The fact regarding the incorrect citation and non-existence of a relied-upon judgment was confirmed after the independent inquiry carried out by the High Court. While issuing the guidelines, the Court was conscious of the fact that any irregularities in the judicial orders of subordinate courts shall affect the justice delivery system and therefore issued the following binding guidelines for the use of AI in judicial work:
- Any citation, precedent, extract, factual assertion, or proposition of law obtained through Artificial Intelligence platforms or similar technological tools must be independently verified from authentic and authoritative sources before being relied upon or incorporated in any judicial order.
- Every precedent relied upon in a judicial order shall be accompanied by a complete and accurate citation.
- Wherever a precedent constitutes the foundation of a finding or conclusion, the relevant extract of the judgment should, as far as practicable, be reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased.
- Citations obtained from unofficial compilations, secondary sources, or electronic databases should be cross-verified with authentic sources before being incorporated into judicial orders.
After issuing these guidelines, the Court also directed the Registrar Judicial of both wings of the JKLHC to forward a copy of this order to all judicial officers of both wings working in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for information and compliance. When one reads this order, one can understand how serious and concerned the High Court is with regard to the use of AI in judicial work.
Not only the High Court, but the Supreme Court has also, in a case of similar gravity, namely Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr., observed that a judicial officer’s decision founded on AI-generated, non-existent judgments is not a mere error of reasoning but amounts to misconduct. This trend has grown, and its repercussions are broad and huge, affecting not only the party against whom the judgment lies but also compromising the cornerstone of judicial administration.
The JKLHC issuing such binding guidelines is a way to regulate the use of AI, not to stop the use of AI entirely. This judgment will have far-reaching, positive impacts on judicial administration in the subordinate courts, as they form the bedrock of our judiciary, and any discrepancy or irregularity in a subordinate judicial order will add to the pendency of cases, as they are bound to be challenged before higher courts. This step of the High Court is more than necessary and will help uphold fairness, accuracy, and institutional integrity in judicial work.
The writer is a law student at the University of Kashmir
ha*************@***il.com