Pakistan

Guidelines for practitioners

As at July 2026, though guidelines have been issued for judges (discussed below), to our knowledge there are no guidelines issued by local, provincial, or national Bar Councils in Pakistan regarding the use of AI by lawyers. In the absence of specific guidance, practitioners are bound by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973, and the professional conduct rules thereunder, as well as general ethical obligations their respective Bar Councils apply to them. Under Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973, an advocate may be reprimanded, suspended, removed from practice, fined or penalized if found guilty of misconduct. The Act further empowers the Pakistan Bar Council to make rules under Section 55, pursuant thereto are the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules 1976. Rule 161 provides:

‘An advocate shall not intentionally misquote to a judge, judicial officer or jury the testimony of a witness, the argument of the opposing advocate or the contents of a document; nor shall he intentionally misquote to a judge or judicial officer the language of a book, statute or decision; nor shall he, with knowledge of its invalidity and without disclosing such knowledge, cite as authority a decision that has been over-ruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional.’

The above provision may be attracted in situations where the use of AI has led to hallucinated citations or an advocate relying on AI has overstated an argument or misconstrued a matter of the record. Further, Rule 163 mandates that an advocate engaged in public prosecution has a primary duty to “see justice is done”, not pursue a conviction or suppress or conceal facts. Rule 175-A confirms that a breach of any of the rules relating to conduct including Rules 161 and 163 qualifies as misconduct under the parent Act.

National Guidelines for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions of Pakistan (2026)

In April 2026, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee published the National Guidelines for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Institutions of Pakistan. In drafting the Guidelines, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee was led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Guidelines set down the permissible uses of AI in the Judiciary and key guiding principles for judicial use, and are applicable to all superior courts, lower courts, special courts, tribunals and judicial institutions. The guiding principles include:

Permissible uses of AI by judges include:

The Guidelines mention preference for locally developed systems trained on Pakistani legal data.

The Guidelines are non-exhaustive. They do not explicitly prohibit any other use of AI by judges, however, any other use must comply with the Guidelines’ overarching safeguards. In particular, AI must not replace a judge’s final decision-making authority or substitute generative output for independent judicial reasoning

The National Judicial Policy Making Committee has stated that it respects the administrative and judicial autonomy of High Courts, allowing each jurisdiction to tailor implementation according to its needs.

As at July2026, Pakistan does not appear to have formally engaged with the UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals (2025) in an official capacity. However, the National Judicial Policy Making Committee's guidelines expressly state that the framework ‘aligns with international best practices’. Moreover, UNESCO welcomed the Guidelines and stressed that they ‘draw upon UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence’.

Criminal procedure rules

The use of AI in criminal proceedings in Pakistan may be governed by: (i) the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898), which is the procedural law covering criminal trials; and (ii) the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (1984), the law governing evidence.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (1898)

As at July 2026, there appear to be no explicit provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the admissibility of AI-related evidence in Pakistan. There are however several provisions regarding the use and admissibility of evidence during criminal justice proceedings which may be relevant. Section 94 of the CrPC permits a court or officer in charge of a police station to require the production of any document or other thing considered necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry or trial.

Section 96 empowers the Court to issue a search warrant where it believes that the person to whom a summons or order under Section 94 will not produce the document or other thing as required.

The Court is further empowered under Section 104 to impound any document or other thing produced. Section 244(2) allows a Magistrate, on application of the complainant or the accused, to issue summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

While the term ‘thing’ or ‘other thing’ has not been defined within the CrPC, the Lahore High Court in Shakeel v The State etc (PLD 2025 Lahore 430) has given the following guidance as to its interpretation at Paragraph [34]: ‘In particular, the term things used in section 94 CrPC. and Article 161 of QSO must be given a broad meaning and understood to signify anything connected with the offence whose production will serve the interest of justice.’

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (1984) (the law of evidence)

The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (1984) is concerned with the admissibility and weight of evidence in Pakistan generally. As at July 2026, the Order does not contain any provisions that explicitly deal with AI related evidence. Two provisions are, however, relevant and could possibly be utilised to bring AI-generated or AI-processed evidence before a court.

• Article 164 gives the court a general discretion to permit the production of evidence that has become available as a result of modern devices or techniques, provided the court considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances of the case.
• Article 46-A separately establishes that statements taking the form of electronic documents are relevant facts where they were generated, received, or recorded by an automated information system that was functioning properly at the time.

Taken together, these two provisions could plausibly be relied upon to bring AI-generated or AI-processed evidence before a court.

With respect to the status of evidence received or stored electronically in an automated information system, the following provisions provide for its weight and admissibility.

• Article 73 in its Explanation Clauses 3 & 4 provides that a printout or any other form of output of an automated information system shall not be denied the status of primary evidence solely for the reason that it was generated, sent, received or stored in electronic form if the automated information system was in working order at all material times. Any such material shall be treated as primary evidence where a security procedure was applied to it.
• Article 78-A provides that if an electronic document is alleged to have been generated wholly or in part by any person through the use of an information system, and where such allegation is denied, the application of a security procedure to the signature or the electronic document must be proved.

The term ‘security procedure' is defined in the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 in Section 2(x) as a procedure agreed between the parties, implemented in the normal course of business for establishing the authenticity and integrity of any electronic document. This definition is endorsed in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.

Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)

In February 2025, Punjab police registered three FIRs under PECA arising from the alleged uploading of AI-generated deepfake videos and images depicting Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, charged additionally under Sections 500, 504, and 505-1(C) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

In the above context, Section 500 delineates the punishment for defamation as being simple imprisonment which may extend to 2 years and/or a fine. Similar penal consequences are attracted to print, engrave, or sell matters known to be defamatory in Sections 501-502.

Section 504 relates to intentional insult which provokes or intends to provoke any person to breach public peace.

Section 505-1(c) criminalizes the publication or circulation of a statement, rumour or report with the intent to incite any class or community of persons.

Whilst the Pakistan Penal Code does not explicitly provide for AI related offenses or the use of AI in criminal proceedings, the following provisions may also be attracted:

• Section 191 deals with the provision of false evidence where a person is legally bound to state the truth, for example in a court of law.
• Section 192 criminalises the fabrication of false evidence.
• Section 203 provides for imprisonment up to 2 years and/or a fine where an accused provides false information with respect to the matter they have been accused of.

Data protection legislation

The existing data protection legislation in Pakistan is centred around cybercrime and digital governance as opposed to any direct framework regulating automated decision-making, automated data collection or the protection of an individual’s rights in situations of surveillance. Various statutes and policies outline the regulatory steps that will be taken, but it remains to be seen how they will complement the existing data protection and human rights frameworks with respect to AI systems.

Future reforms may arise. Pakistan’s National AI Policy 2025 (discussed below) details, in Chapter 3, the Government’s plans to implement human oversight mechanisms for critical AI operations, conduct compliance audits and define a legal framework with specified penalties and incentives. It also details plans to tackle generative AI use and a national data security policy.

Data Protection Bill (2023)

Pakistan’s Data Protection Bill was first drafted in 2023 by the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication. As at July 2026, as per media reports, the Bill remains unenacted and subject to government revision and stakeholder consultation. Though the Bill does not contain provisions specific to the use of AI in criminal proceedings, if enacted, the Bill will address issues of privacy and consent regarding data processing, sharing, and storage.

• Section 2(j) defines a data subject as a natural person who is the subject of personal data.
• Section 2(z) defines personal data as any information that relates directly or indirectly to a data subject, who is identified or identifiable from that information or other information in the possession of a data controller and/or data processor, including any sensitive or critical personal data. It is further clarified that anonymized or pseudonymized data incapable of identifying a person is not personal data.
• Section 2(kk) classifies biometric and genetic information, health information, identification documents, criminal records, religious beliefs, political affiliations and castes, tribes and ethnicity information as sensitive personal data.
• Section 2(g) defines critical personal data as personal data retained by the public service provider - excluding data open to the public - as well as data identified by sector regulators and classified as critical or any data related to international obligations.
• Sections 5-9 of the Bill outline the consent required from the relevant person, the relevant notice requirements and impose obligations upon the data controller to protect the personal data.
• Section 14 imposes the requirements to process a child’s personal data in a manner that protects their rights and interests and includes requirements for consent of the child’s parents or guardians.
• Section 15 regulates the use of sensitive personal data and critical personal data. It shall not be processed unless the data subject has given explicit consent and any of the further requirements of Section 15(a) are met.
• Sections 16-29 establish the withdrawal of consent, prevention of processing where it may cause damage and distress, the right to request erasure of data and the grievance redressal process. Section 29(4) preserves the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing which, if enacted, may be a useful safeguard against AI-related profiling and data collection.

Digital Nation Pakistan Act (2025)

The Digital Nation Pakistan Act (2025) is positioned as an enabling statute to facilitate a shift towards the development of digital infrastructure. It envisions a Digital Authority (Sections 6 and 7), developed to oversee and regulate data management, governance, and AI. However, the details regarding the Digital Authority, including the scope of its AI oversight mandate and its enforcement mechanisms, are limited.

• Section 8(g) restricts the Digital Authority to ensure that there is no overlap with the jurisdiction of other regulatory bodies and no conflict with relevant laws or existing regulatory frameworks.
• Section 12 enables the authority to monitor implementation of the Digital Nation Pakistan Act and ensure compliance through formal notices specifying corrective action to public entities. However, no penalties or offences have been outlined under the Act or any delegated legislation as of yet.
• Section 28(2) confirms that existing laws regarding data protection and cybersecurity shall hold precedent.

As at July 2026, the Pakistan Digital Authority has been established. Whilst it has not as of yet provided for any rules or regulations, a draft National Data Governance Policy 2026 is under consideration. The draft policy assigns the Pakistan Digital Authority with responsibility for issuing binding standards, conducting compliance audits and directing corrective action.

Cybersecurity laws

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (2016)

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) is the primary cyber security statute in Pakistan. It deals with cybercrime through the criminalisation of: identity theft and misappropriation of identity information in Section 16, dishonest misuse of information through Sections 3 - 8, and crimes relating to human dignity and sexual offences in Sections 20 – 24. Section 26-A criminalises the intentional dissemination, public exhibition or transmission of information which the person knows, or has reason to believe, is false or fake and which is likely to cause fear, panic, disorder or unrest among the public or society. The statute further provides for the establishment of an investigation agency (the NCCIA) and elaborates on the agency’s powers to investigate (Section 30 & 30D), provisions for victim and witness protection (Section 30B) as well as broader powers regarding remand (Section 30A), warrants (Section 33-34) and information handling (Section 36, 39).

Although PECA does not expressly regulate AI, conduct performed through or facilitated by AI may fall within the Act where all the constituent elements of a particular PECA offence are established. The use of AI does not, by itself, render conduct criminal.

Human rights

The Constitution of Pakistan (1973) serves as the primary human rights framework in the country by enshrining certain fundamental rights. While there is no mention of AI in the Constitution, nor any amendment addressing AI specifically, several provisions may still be relevant. Most significantly, Article 14 protects the right to dignity and privacy, through which, the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and dignity which may serve as a safeguard against AI-generated non-consensual explicit consent and overreach in predictive policing. Article 9 (protecting the right to life and liberty), Article 19 (freedom of speech), Article 19A (right to information), and Article 10A (the right to a fair trial) may also be invoked.

Article 25A provides that all citizens are equal before the law, and further prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex (Article 25A(2)). Article 25 may be engaged where an AI system used by a public authority produces unjustifiably different outcomes for similarly situated persons, including through biased training data or proxy characteristics. Context-specific discrimination safeguards also appear in Article 26 (Non-Discrimination in respect to public access) and Article 27 (Safeguards against discrimination in services)

Additionally, Pakistan has binding obligations as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where Article 2(1) requires each party state to respect Covenant Rights without distinction on grounds including race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

• Article 26 of the ICCPR protects equality before the law, equal protection of the law and protection against discrimination.
• Article 17 protects against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence and against unlawful attacks on honour and reputation, making it relevant to biometric surveillance and data profiling.

Moreover, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

• The rights and interests of children are broadly protected under Articles 2 and 3.
• Article 16 protects children against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence and against unlawful attacks upon honour and reputation.
• Article 40 provides more specific protections for children accused or recognised as having infringed the criminal law, including treatment consistent with their dignity, the presumption of innocence, fair determination of the allegations and respect for their privacy at all stages of the proceedings. These provisions may be engaged by facial recognition, biometric databases, automated profiling or the use of a child’s personal information in an AI system.

Outlook

In 2025, the Ministry of Information Technology & Telecommunication presented its National AI Policy which represents a pivotal milestone for transforming Pakistan into a knowledge-based economy. The Policy provides a developmental framework that ‘coherently interlaces with the draft Personal Data Protection Act’. The Policy envisages a secure ecosystem ‘to ensure AI serves the public good, freedom of information, protects individual rights, and aligns with national priorities.’

The Policy does not address AI use in criminal proceedings specifically. Its only reference to the justice sector appears under the Fourth Pillar (‘Transformation and Evolution’), which lists ‘Governance’ as one of several priority areas for sectoral AI adoption roadmaps, encompassing policing, equal access to justice and information, and ‘quick decision making’ among civil servants — without further elaboration, dedicated safeguards, or an implementation timeline specific to criminal justice. However, general safeguards proposed under the Secure AI Ecosystem pillar — including human oversight for high-risk applications, a public register of government AI systems, lifecycle impact assessments, and third-party algorithmic audits — would presumably apply to any future justice-sector deployment.

CASES

Possibilities for AI adoption

In Ishfaq Ahmad v Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 2025 SC 582), the Supreme Court of Pakistan explored the potential benefits and concerns surrounding the use of AI in the judicial process whilst also stressing the need for a guiding framework. The following observations of the Supreme Court provide insight into AI adoption and constitutional compliance:

• ‘Under Articles 10A and 37(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), the right to fair and expeditious justice must not be rendered illusory. Within this constitutional framework, the thoughtful adoption of AI can serve as a viable instrument for access to timely justice and alleviating systemic backlogs.’ (para. 7)
• ‘AI, when deployed within principled boundaries, holds significant potential to enhance judicial and institutional productivity and efficiency.’ (para. 9)
• ‘The right to a fair trial before a competent, independent, and impartial judge is a fundamental principle of due process. AI must not overshadow the core guarantee of judicial autonomy. While AI has the potential to improve consistency and efficiency in legal processes, it also carries the risk of introducing biases and limiting judicial discretion.’ (para. 12)
• It was unequivocally stated that AI can never become a substitute for judicial decision-making, by affirming that ‘AI tools remain subordinate to judicial reasoning and must never be mistaken as a substitute for the exercise of judicial conscience, discretion, or interpretive judgment. It is strongly underlined that the judicial role requires that AI tools be viewed as supplementary aids rather than substitutes for human reasoning. The responsibility for ensuring the accuracy, ethical integrity, and confidentiality of judicial determinations rests entirely with the judge.’ (para. 9) It also noted that: ‘[i]t must be unequivocally affirmed that AI is not, and must never become, a substitute for judicial decision-making. Adjudication is a constitutional function rooted in legal reasoning, institutional independence, and human empathy, qualities no automated system can replicate. The human part of justice lies in its moral and emotional core, the qualities that AI can never replicate (at least today).’ (para. 13)

The Supreme Court encouraged the use of AI tools in court proceedings and recommended that the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee in collaboration with the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan develop clear and principled guidelines for courts and practitioners to follow. The Court stressed that the guidelines ‘must delineate clear boundaries, ensuring that AI is used only as a facilitative tool and never in a manner that compromises human judicial autonomy, constitutional fidelity, or public trust in the justice system.’ (para. 18)

In Abdul Salam Khan v Bank Al-Habib Ltd PLD 2025 SC 1043, the Supreme Court again briefly spoke on how the delays in adjudication are a key challenge in judicial governance. The Court at Paragraph [7] held that a ‘modern, responsive, and intelligent case management framework ’ is a constitutional responsibility of the judiciary. In the same paragraph, it reiterated the need for judicial use of AI tools to assist in scheduling and triage.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on this matter, there have been earlier documented instances of AI use in the lower courts of Pakistan. For instance, in 2023, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Mandi Bahaudin District used ChatGPT to explore grounds for granting an injunction in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2023. While his decision was not based on his use of AI, he did express support for implementing AI as an assisting technology in the judicial process.

AI-generated evidence

In Mir Hassan v The State (2025 YLR 645), the Balochistan High Court refused to place reliance on video evidence presented by the prosecution on the basis that the prosecution had not sent it for forensic analysis to determine if it was doctored or an outcome of AI. This reflects the growing caution that judges approach cases within criminal matters owing to the apprehensions of doctored evidence as a result of AI use.