Subscribe Now! Get features like
The Supreme Court’s proposed “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” may well be one of the most consequential judicial reform initiatives in recent years. Released during the tenure of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the draft framework is not merely a technology policy but also an attempt to answer a question that courts across the world are grappling with: how should the justice system harness the benefits of AI without compromising judicial independence, due process, fairness, and human judgment?
What makes the draft particularly noteworthy is that it neither treats AI as a threat to be resisted nor as a miracle solution to judicial delays. Instead, it adopts a carefully balanced approach of encouraging innovation while imposing clear red lines around areas where machines cannot be allowed to intrude. The regulations apply not only to the Supreme Court and high courts but also to district courts, tribunals, and statutory adjudicatory bodies across the country.
The proposed framework is important because India is among the first major jurisdictions attempting to create a comprehensive judicial AI governance architecture before large-scale deployment of AI tools becomes commonplace in courts.
AI can assist, not decide
The single most important principle running through the draft regulations is what the Supreme Court calls “human primacy and judicial independence”. The regulations categorically declare that AI must remain “strictly subservient” to human judgment and judicial authority. The power to determine questions of law, facts, and justice will continue to vest exclusively in judges.
This is significant because courts worldwide are increasingly experimenting with AI-assisted decision-making. In some jurisdictions, algorithmic tools have been used to assess bail risks, sentencing patterns, and chances of reoffending. Such systems have generated intense controversy because of concerns about hidden biases and a lack of transparency.
The Supreme Court’s draft rules firmly reject this path. The proposed regulations prohibit AI from deciding cases, passing sentences, or judicial outcomes through algorithmic decision-making. Even where AI assists, its outputs must remain advisory and subject to independent judicial scrutiny. Judges cannot abdicate their responsibility by relying on machine-generated recommendations.
The framework also recognises concerns regarding “black-box” systems — AI models whose internal reasoning cannot be explained. It bars the use of opaque or unexplainable AI systems in matters affecting legal rights or personal liberty. In effect, the Supreme Court is drawing a constitutional boundary that AI may help judges work faster, but it can never become a judge.
What AI can and cannot do inside courts
The draft regulations permit a wide range of AI-assisted functions designed to improve efficiency and access to justice. These include legal research, citation verification, summarisation of pleadings and judgments, translation, transcription of court proceedings, drafting assistance, scheduling of hearings, record management, and case administration. AI-powered chatbots may also be used to help litigants understand procedures and access court services. Accessibility tools for persons with disabilities are specifically encouraged.
The proposed regulations even create a “presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption”, signalling that courts should actively explore technologies capable of reducing delays and improving judicial administration. The draft further states that innovation should generally be preferred over restraint where appropriate safeguards exist.
At the same time, the list of prohibited uses is striking. AI cannot be used to assess flight risk, predict recidivism, determine bail eligibility, or evaluate the credibility of witnesses and parties. Courts are also barred from using AI to profile litigants, predict future behaviour, or conduct surveillance of judges, lawyers, and litigants. The regulations prohibit AI-generated material from being treated as independent evidence unless its AI-generated nature is fully disclosed.
These restrictions reveal the Supreme Court’s awareness of the dangers posed by predictive algorithms. The draft effectively rejects the idea that machines should assess human character, future conduct, or criminal propensity.
Disclosure, accountability, and the problem of AI hallucinations
Perhaps the most practical feature of the draft regulations is the accountability framework governing AI-assisted filings.
Lawyers and litigants will be allowed to use AI for preparing pleadings, documents, and submissions. However, if AI has been used, that fact must be disclosed to the court through a prescribed declaration. Courts may also require parties to disclose the specific AI system used, the extent of AI assistance, and the steps taken to verify the accuracy of AI-generated content. This is a direct response to a growing global problem with lawyers citing non-existent judgments generated by AI systems.
The regulations recognise the risk of fabricated, inaccurate, or misleading AI outputs. If a pleading, document, or piece of evidence is found to be false because of AI-generated content, responsibility will lie entirely on the person who filed it. The litigant or lawyer cannot escape liability by claiming that the AI system made the mistake.
The framework also contemplates disclosure of synthetic or AI-generated information used during proceedings and proposes an AI Content Verification Authority to develop standards and protocols for verifying generative AI outputs.
In short, the message is clear: AI may assist advocacy, but responsibility remains human.
A new governance architecture for judicial AI
The most forward-looking aspect of the draft may be the elaborate institutional structure proposed for governing AI in courts.
The regulations envisage a permanent apex body at the national level to establish standards, approve AI systems, and supervise AI adoption across the judiciary. Supporting this body would be specialised committees dealing with judicial applications, technology, infrastructure, finance, cybersecurity, and data management. A dedicated Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) is also proposed to provide technical and legal support.
Every high court would have its own AI Committee and AI Secretariat, headed by judicial officers and assisted by technology experts. These bodies would oversee implementation, approve AI tools, investigate incidents, and conduct periodic reviews.
Before deployment, AI systems would undergo technical and ethical impact assessments evaluating training data, risks of bias, hallucinations, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and compliance with human oversight requirements. Courts may also require controlled environment testing before large-scale implementation.
The draft regulations mandate AI audits, AI registers, incident reporting systems, and annual transparency reports. High Courts, tribunals, and commissions would be required to publicly disclose the AI systems they use, audit outcomes, and incidents recorded.
The framework also imposes stringent safeguards on private vendors. No private entity can participate in court AI systems without prior approval. Contracts must contain provisions on ownership of court data, restrictions on data usage, audit rights, transparency obligations, and liability for harm.
The Supreme Court’s draft AI regulations represent an ambitious attempt to prepare the Indian judiciary for the technological transformations already reshaping legal systems worldwide. Rather than waiting for AI adoption to occur in an unregulated manner, the top court has sought to establish constitutional guardrails before the technology becomes deeply embedded in judicial processes.
The proposed framework recognises that AI can help courts tackle delays, improve access to justice, and enhance administrative efficiency. Yet it simultaneously insists that adjudication remains a fundamentally human function. By combining encouragement of innovation with strong safeguards on accountability, privacy, transparency, and judicial independence, the draft regulations offer a model that is both technologically progressive and constitutionally cautious.
If implemented after public consultation, the regulations could become the foundation of India’s judicial AI ecosystem, and perhaps, a reference point for courts around the world seeking to navigate the promise and perils of artificial intelligence.
Leave a Reply