Nepal’s fascination with artificial intelligence (AI) began as a spectacle. In March 2018, the presentation of Hanson Robotics’ humanoid robot Sophia at a UN Development Programme conference in Kathmandu sparked widespread curiosity about automated governance.
Since then, universities, including Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu University, Pokhara University, and Purbanchal University, have incorporated machine learning into their curricula, while initiatives such as AI Developers Nepal have helped expand the country’s technology talent pool.
The government, meanwhile, has been reviewing its Digital Nepal Framework, with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology highlighting the need for coherent policies that align technological adoption with national development, risk mitigation, and the rule of law.
Yet, as the fourth industrial revolution reshapes education, business, and public discourse, Nepal’s judiciary remains burdened by outdated administrative processes. Across the Supreme, High, and District Courts, procedural delays, deteriorating physical records, and registry backlogs continue to obstruct access to justice. AI should not be treated as a technological novelty but as a potential tool for modernizing court administration while safeguarding constitutional principles.
Lessons from India
Nepal can draw valuable lessons from neighbouring India, where the judiciary has pursued digital reform to address a massive case backlog. India’s e-Courts Mission Mode Project offers a useful model for understanding how technology can be integrated into judicial administration.
The initiative evolved from basic hardware infrastructure in Phase I (2007–2015) to case-management systems and electronic filing in Phase II (2015–2023), before moving towards more advanced applications involving AI, machine learning, optical character recognition (OCR), and natural language processing (NLP) in Phase III. The central lesson is that AI should transform judicial administration before being considered for adjudication. While constitutional interpretation and judicial decision-making require human judgment, court administration involves repetitive, data-intensive tasks that are more suitable for automation.
Automating court administration
AI tools could help Nepal’s court registries address administrative bottlenecks that prolong proceedings. Machine learning systems, for instance, could categorize cases by subject, procedural readiness, complexity, and age, helping registries manage queues and identify stagnant cases.
Nepal could also learn from the Indian Supreme Court’s collaboration with IIT Madras to automate the detection of defects in electronic filings. Similar systems could flag missing annexures, formatting errors, and incomplete affidavits before petitions reach judges, reducing clerical delays at the outset.
OCR and NLP could also help digitize Nepal’s deteriorating court archives. Converting physical files into searchable digital repositories would make historical records easier to retrieve and use. Meanwhile, NLP tools could analyze case flows to identify recurring procedural delays, including irregular scheduling and prolonged service of summons. This would enable court administrators to address the causes of backlogs rather than simply count pending cases.
Building on domestic innovation
Judicial modernization need not depend entirely on imported, closed-source software. Nepal has a growing base of scientific and technological expertise that could support the development of locally adapted legal applications. Work by computational scientists such as Dr. Sameer Maskey of Fusemachines and Columbia University demonstrates the potential of language technologies, while initiatives at the Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) have explored Nepali speech synthesis and recognition.
These capabilities could be adapted to address practical courtroom challenges. Drawing lessons from India’s SUVAS, which translates judicial documents across languages, and SUPACE, which assists judges with tasks such as extracting facts and identifying precedents, Nepal could develop Nepali-language speech-to-text systems for transcribing court proceedings and witness testimony. Such tools could reduce delays in preparing written records and produce more timely, searchable transcripts.
The benefits could extend beyond court efficiency. A dependable and transparent legal system is essential to economic stability, particularly in a country heavily reliant on remittances and vulnerable to changes in global labour markets. Efficient resolution of commercial, civil, and labour disputes would reduce uncertainty for businesses and workers alike. Modernizing court administration is therefore not merely a technological exercise; it is also an investment in institutional and economic resilience.
Human rights safeguards
The use of AI in the judiciary also presents significant ethical and constitutional risks. Machine learning systems trained on historical court records may reproduce existing biases and socioeconomic inequalities. Generative AI tools introduce further concerns, including opaque decision-making and hallucinations that produce fictitious legal authorities.
These issues were addressed at a four-day workshop in Kathmandu organized by UNESCO in partnership with the National Judicial Academy (NJA). The workshop brought together judges from the Supreme, High, and District Courts as part of UNESCO’s global Judges’ Initiative, which has engaged more than 36,000 judicial actors worldwide. It emphasized that judicial technology must remain consistent with international standards on freedom of expression, access to information, and the rule of law.
Transparency and accountability must be central to any AI framework for the courts. Court users should be informed when automated systems influence the processing of their cases and retain the right to seek human review. No technological system should be allowed to obscure responsibility or make it difficult to challenge an administrative decision.
A phased strategy
Nepal needs a regulatory framework that encourages useful innovation while establishing clear limits on the use of AI in the judiciary. Four measures could provide a foundation.
1. Adopt a risk-based governance model. The judiciary should distinguish between low-risk administrative applications and high-risk systems that could affect fundamental rights. Tools for digitizing archives, checking filing defects, and scheduling hearings should be prioritized. AI should not independently determine bail, sentencing, individual liberty, or the substantive assessment of evidence. Such decisions must remain under human control.
2. Establish a Judicial AI Ethics Committee. A dedicated body comprising judges, legal practitioners, and computer scientists should develop operational guidelines, assess software security, and require auditable records of automated processes.
3. Develop reliable legal datasets. AI systems are only as dependable as the information on which they rely. The judiciary should create standardized, representative, and anonymized datasets of Nepali statutes, procedural rules, and judgments. These would improve the accuracy of legal research and information-retrieval tools while reducing the risk of fabricated or misleading outputs.
4. Begin with controlled pilot projects. Initial deployments should focus on selected district courts with high caseloads. Processing times, filing-defect rates, system reliability, and user feedback should be measured before any wider rollout. This would allow the judiciary to identify shortcomings and refine its approach without disrupting court operations.
AI cannot resolve judicial vacancies, eliminate socioeconomic inequality, or replace the human judgment that justice demands. It can, however, reduce the administrative inefficiencies that make litigation a prolonged and exhausting process. By combining domestic technological expertise with clear regulation, independent oversight, and human accountability, Nepal can build a more efficient, accessible, and transparent judiciary fit for the digital age.
