The Punjab & Haryana High Court, for the first time, has recommended that the state government should utilize artificial intelligence to detect and resolve cases that are unnecessarily emerging, even when the law is settled. This move aims to expedite the legal process by efficiently identifying and managing similar pending matters.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma expressed that the court has noticed numerous instances where litigation is being unnecessarily brought before it, despite the existence of well-established legal precedents. He has directed the State Government to thoroughly review all cases related to this matter currently pending in the court and take appropriate measures for their resolution and disposal.

Furthermore, the Court also suggested that comparable cases could be referred to the Lok Adalat, and the State Government could provide a list to the High Court for consideration. Additionally, the Court recommended that the State Government should utilize artificial intelligence at their own level to conduct searches for such cases, thereby facilitating the disposal of similar cases in a more efficient manner.

These observations were made in response to a plea filed by a woman who was denied the opportunity to regularize her service due to a technicality. The Punjab government's circular did not explicitly include the "Department of Higher Education" in the context of regularization, leading to the legal dispute and prompting the court's suggestions regarding the use of artificial intelligence to address similar cases.

The Court expressed its opinion that the petitioner meets all the necessary criteria outlined in the policy for regularization. The sole obstacle in her case is the absence of the department's name in the list mentioned in the policy.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Court granted the plea and emphasized that, based on its review of previous judgments, there should be no discrimination among different departments of the State Government regarding the regularization policy. This policy was introduced as a one-time measure to provide relief to daily wagers appointed through a transparent selection process, even if they were initially hired on a contract or ad hoc basis.

The Court ordered that the respondents should issue the necessary orders to regularize the petitioner in the position of a clerk once she has completed three years of service as an ad hoc or contractual clerk. Additionally, the Court directed that she be entitled to receive all the associated benefits resulting from this regularization.