Nepal’s judiciary has formally approved the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in courts for legal research, document management, and administrative support, while prohibiting its use in writing judgments or other decisions that require judicial discretion.

The Supreme Court’s full-court meeting on Thursday endorsed the Judiciary Information and Communication Technology Policy 2026, paving the way for AI-assisted judicial services as part of a broader effort to modernise Nepal’s courts.

The policy states that AI-based systems will be used to support tasks such as drafting non-decisional documents, legal research and academic study. However, it explicitly bars AI from influencing judicial decision-making or being used to write judgments, writ petitions or other documents that require human legal reasoning.

Under the policy, any AI system developed either internally or by external organisations may be used only after assessing its reliability, transparency, potential bias and operational framework to ensure it is suitable for judicial work.

The judiciary also plans to restructure its case management database so that court records and legal documents are stored in machine-readable formats. This will allow AI systems to quickly search and analyse judgments and orders issued by the Supreme Court and courts across Nepal.

Clause 5.2 of the policy states that AI will be introduced as an innovation tool in judicial processes, with its potential applications identified and implemented in stages. The judiciary also plans awareness programmes and training for judges, court officials, lawyers and court users on both the benefits and risks of AI.

Supreme Court Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel said the policy is designed to ensure AI serves only as a tool to assist people rather than replace judicial decision-making.

“We will make maximum use of technology to deliver justice more efficiently and quickly,” Paudel said. “But AI cannot be used for tasks that require human judgment, such as writing court decisions, writ petitions or judicial notes.”

He said allowing AI to draft judgments could create serious risks because AI systems may cite incorrect or even non-existent laws.

According to Amit Upreti, a joint secretary involved in drafting the policy, the framework marks Nepal’s first formal step towards identifying practical uses of AI within the judiciary.

He said the primary focus would be on legal research.

“We have been careful to ensure AI does not influence or pressure human decision-making,” Upreti said. “In matters that require judicial discretion and the application of specific legal provisions, AI could even generate references to laws that do not exist, making its use inappropriate.”

The Supreme Court is preparing to begin using AI to assist with organising and managing court orders. It also plans to conduct training and awareness programmes for members of the Nepal Bar Association, government attorneys, judicial and legal service employees, and court users.

Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma had pledged during his parliamentary hearing before appointment to promote e-courts and introduce a policy governing AI in the judiciary. He said the newly adopted policy fulfils that commitment and would become a milestone in improving legal research, case management and other judicial functions.

“As information technology continues to develop, the judiciary must also become technology-friendly and make effective use of these advances,” Sharma said. “The full court has adopted this policy with that objective, and it will be updated over time to meet future needs.”

The policy also allows the judiciary to seek partnerships with government agencies, Nepal’s private sector, academic institutions and international development partners to strengthen digital infrastructure.

It further provides that the Supreme Court’s Information Technology Committee will oversee decisions on research partnerships, innovation and collaboration with domestic private and academic institutions.

In outlining the challenges facing Nepal’s judiciary, the policy notes that the country has yet to establish a long-term digital infrastructure strategy capable of addressing weaknesses in information technology systems, human resources and related institutional capacity.