Artificial Intelligence in Pakistan’s Criminal Justice System: Enhancing Efficiency, Investigation, and Fair Trial Safeguards

Abstract

A crisis of unprecedented magnitude has engulfed Pakistan's criminal justice system—with more than 2.1 million pending criminal cases, an average trial period of 7–10 years, and conviction rate of less than 10% (Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan, 2025). Such failures have enormous consequences for litigants, a lack of faith in the rule of law and the constitutional protections of fair and speedy justice afforded by Article 10A. In this article, the author critically explores the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) applications in the context of these systemic failures and the need to protect fundamental rights. Based upon doctrinal legal analysis, comparative study of AI implementation in India, United Kingdom, European Union, Estonia and China, and a structured assessment of the feasibility of AI at various stages of the criminal justice system, the article suggests that there is a meaningful approach for the systemic reform through targeted implementation of AI with the help of a strong law that safeguards the rights of the citizens. Implementing NLP-based FIR triage to ensure timely identification and distribution of resources in investigations; predictive investigation resource allocation; evidence adequacy assessment; witness management systems; and intelligent judicial case management are all considered high-feasibility interventions aligned with the constitutional system of Pakistan. The article calls for a three-pronged legislative approach that includes the Criminal Justice (AI Governance) Act, revisions to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCPR) 1898 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (QSO) 1984, and a Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). Drawing on the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Ethical Charter (2018) and comparative best practices, the article proposes that while AI is not a magic bullet, and that it is not necessarily a good substitute for human judgment in adjudicating disputes, it can be a transformative instrument for procedural efficiency where it is used with transparency, accountability and judicial oversight.