01
Factual background & dispute
- A judge adjudicating a child's health rights case entered prompts into ChatGPT-3.5 and incorporated the question-and-answer text into the final judgment.
- The Constitutional Court reviewed whether artificial intelligence substituted for judicial reasoning and whether its use infringed procedural due process.
- The Court solicited expert opinions broadly across technical, legal, and academic bodies.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- Whether incorporating generative AI into judicial writing infringes upon the natural judge guarantee and constitutional due process
- How judges must disclose and verify AI-generated content in judicial decisions
- Whether confidential or personal case information may be submitted to external AI systems
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The Court held that generative AI did not displace the judge's independent decision-making in the specific proceeding.
- The Court observed deficiencies in transparency and accountability regarding the manner in which the tool was used.
- The judgment articulated binding standards of transparency, accountability, privacy, rigorous verification, human control, and precaution, directing the judiciary to issue comprehensive operating guidelines.
04
Practical risk implications
01Judicial officers and legal teams should disclose the specific role and scope of AI tools in their work product.
02Factual assertions, statutory provisions, case law, and citations generated by AI must be verified against primary authoritative sources.
03Client files and personal data require confidentiality and data protection vetting before submission to third-party models.