The new rules of Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Judicial Council draw a clear and distinct line between the deployment of approved artificial intelligence as a supportive tool in preparing and reviewing files, and judges retaining the authority to issue rulings and verdicts.
Approval of technical office rules and the approved AI technology framework
Distribution of responsibilities between the preparation center, technical offices, and quality control
Statements by Minister of Justice Waleed Al-Samaani and technical accreditation controls
Institutional safeguards and upcoming executive steps in the judicial sector
Frequently asked questions
Approval of technical office rules and the approved AI technology framework
The Supreme Judicial Council in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has adopted new regulatory rules governing the work of technical offices supporting judicial procedures, establishing an official framework through which approved artificial intelligence technologies can contribute to case preparation and technical review. Okaz newspaper reported this development on October 18, with English-language coverage published by the Saudi Gazette.
These rules address the administrative and technical processes by which courts prepare files, examine legal materials, and review drafts of judicial work. Their significance lies in the official recognition of artificial intelligence as a tool capable of supporting parts of the judicial workflow; however, available reports do not establish that Saudi courts have transferred judicial decision-making authority to autonomous artificial intelligence systems.
This institutional development falls under the classification of artificial intelligence governance, judicial technology, and public administration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The first report by the Saudi Gazette was published at 19:00 Dubai time, followed by statements from the Minister of Justice at 19:09 Dubai time on October 18, 2026. This simultaneous timing highlights the Saudi judicial system’s keenness to couple the regulatory announcement with direct ministerial clarifications explaining the dimensions of the decision and its legal and procedural boundaries to specialists and the public.
Distribution of responsibilities between the preparation center, technical offices, and quality control
The new regulatory framework distributes responsibilities across multiple levels within the judicial system. The “Preparation Center” assumes responsibility for preparing and reviewing cases in courts of first instance, while technical offices provide support and backing to appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the separate “Technical Affairs Office” within the Supreme Judicial Council handles quality control, examines observations, and utilizes review results to improve institutional performance.
According to press reports, the rules also define responsibilities for preparing, reviewing, and approving judicial materials, with the framework emphasizing the necessity of considering the facts of the case, applicable legislation and regulations, judicial principles, and established procedures.
Statements by Minister of Justice Waleed Al-Samaani and technical accreditation controls
Saudi Minister of Justice Dr. Waleed Al-Samaani provided additional context in statements published on the same day, explaining that the new rules aim to improve judicial quality, clarify institutional responsibilities, and achieve greater utilization of data and performance indicators. Most importantly, the minister stated that these rules enable the use of approved artificial intelligence technologies to support case preparation and technical review.
This restriction using the term “approved” carries critical significance, indicating that the technologies intended for use must fall within an officially accredited framework, even though available reports do not specify the detailed technical accreditation mechanism. Potential artificial intelligence applications within this framework could include document organization, legal information retrieval, and assistance with drafting or review—examples of functions systems can perform and which should not be reported as actually deployed capabilities unless confirmed by the competent authority.
Institutional safeguards and upcoming executive steps in the judicial sector
The mere establishment of regulatory rules does not prove that performance has actually improved; original reports do not provide audited figures for reduced case processing times, changes in judicial accuracy, or operational cost savings. Furthermore, no specific implementation date, vendor contracts, model architectures, or complete list of approved tools has been disclosed.
Judicial uses of artificial intelligence raise precise technical and institutional questions given that legal decisions entail severe consequences for individuals. Related issues include the accuracy of automatically generated legal references, the protection of confidential documents, the traceability of automated outputs, and the ability of authorized personnel to detect errors. The confirmed next steps involve actual implementation under the approved rules and any subsequent disclosure regarding authorized systems.
For the technology sector in the Arab Gulf region, this announcement gains double significance as it clearly defines a vital area of sovereign government services where approved artificial intelligence tools are being officially integrated into institutional court procedures. The decision also draws an unmistakable line between introducing artificial intelligence technologies to assist courts and technical offices in preparing and reviewing legal materials, and allowing software to determine final judicial outcomes and verdicts, which remain exclusively in the hands of judges.
Frequently asked questions
Question: What do the new rules approved by the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council include?
Answer: The rules regulate the work of technical offices and the preparation center in courts, and permit the use of approved artificial intelligence technologies to assist in case preparation and technical review.
Question: Do these rules grant artificial intelligence systems the authority to issue judicial verdicts?
Answer: No, the function of approved technologies is limited to administrative and technical support in preparing and reviewing files, and does not transfer judicial decision-making authority to autonomous automated systems.
Question: How are tasks distributed between the preparation center and technical offices in Saudi courts?
Answer: The preparation center specializes in courts of first instance, technical offices support appellate courts and the Supreme Court, while the Technical Affairs Office at the Supreme Judicial Council monitors performance quality.
Question: What is the purpose of requiring artificial intelligence technologies to be approved according to the Minister of Justice’s statement?
Answer: This aims to ensure that any technical tool is subject to institutional controls and standards that protect procedural accuracy, document confidentiality, and compliance with regulations and judicial principles.
