The Supreme Court has released draft regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in courts, allowing lawyers and litigants to use AI tools in legal work while requiring disclosure of such use. According to reports from Business Standard, the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 were released by the Supreme Court's AI Committee for public consultation until June 20, 2026. The proposed framework would apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory adjudicatory bodies nationwide. The Supreme Court has invited stakeholders, legal professionals, technology experts and members of the public to submit comments on the draft regulations at office.regcc@sci.nic.in by June 20, 2026, before the framework is finalised. As per NDTV, the regulations aim to govern AI use "grounded in the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence, while establishing an institutional framework for responsible AI adoption across India's judicial system."
A key feature of the proposal is a mandatory disclosure regime requiring any party or legal representative using AI in preparing pleadings, documents, submissions or evidence to inform the court at the time of filing. Under draft Regulation 43(3), any party or legal representative using AI in the preparation or submission of material before a court must disclose the AI-assisted nature of such material at the time of filing. Courts would also be empowered to seek details regarding the AI system used, the extent of assistance provided, and the verification measures adopted to ensure accuracy. The regulations further make it clear that parties cannot evade responsibility by attributing mistakes to AI. If a pleading, document or piece of evidence is found to be false, fabricated, misleading or inaccurate because of AI-generated content, the person submitting it will bear full responsibility and cannot rely on the AI-assisted nature of the material as a defence.
Under the proposed framework, AI may be deployed for legal research, citation verification, document summarisation, translation of judgments and pleadings, automated transcription of court proceedings, drafting assistance, case management, cause-list preparation, hearing scheduling, record management, accessibility services for persons with disabilities and AI-powered assistance for litigants seeking information about court processes. As reported by Business Standard, the regulations also encourage the use of AI-powered tools to improve accessibility and assist litigants in navigating court services. According to NDTV, courts will be encouraged to use AI for case management (including identification of defects in new filings), cause list preparation, hearing scheduling and docket prioritisation. The framework permits AI for legal research and precedent retrieval, citation verification, summarising pleadings, judgments and documents, and translation of judgments, orders and legal documents. However, the framework places clear boundaries around the technology's scope.
The draft regulations bar AI systems from deciding cases, determining judicial outcomes, passing sentences, assessing witness credibility, determining bail eligibility, predicting future conduct of litigants, witnesses or accused persons, conducting surveillance of judicial officers, advocates, litigants or any person connected with court proceedings, and employing opaque "black-box" algorithms in matters affecting rights or personal liberty. According to NDTV, Regulation 20 states that the use of AI for reaching judicial outcomes, such as judgments, sentencing, or determining the credibility of witnesses, is strictly forbidden. The framework is anchored in the principle of "human primacy," stipulating that AI must function only as an assistive tool and cannot replace the independent exercise of judicial authority by a duly appointed judicial officer. The regulations recognise the phenomenon of AI "hallucinations" - instances where AI systems generate plausible but inaccurate or fabricated information, which would remain advisory in nature and require human verification before being relied upon. "No judicial outcome (including any judgment, order, or finding of fact or law) shall be reached through Algorithmic Decision-Making alone or solely on the basis of AI-generated information, data, or analysis and the human judicial authority shall be the determinative authority in all adjudicative decisions," as stated in the regulations.
To oversee implementation, the proposal envisages a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court level comprising Supreme Court judges, Chief Justices and judges of High Courts, technology experts, cybersecurity specialists, finance experts, legal practitioners and government representatives. The body would set national standards, approve AI systems, coordinate implementation across courts and publish annual governance reports. According to NDTV, there will be a permanent, full-time apex regulatory authority at the Supreme Court level, chaired by a Supreme Court judge, to set mandatory standards. The framework also envisages AI Committees and dedicated AI Secretariats in the Supreme Court and every High Court, alongside a proposed Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) to evaluate AI tools and support judicial innovation. All AI tools must undergo periodic "in-house" audits at least once a year, while courts would maintain AI Registers documenting approved tools, audit findings and AI-related incidents, and a dedicated AI Incident Database would track errors, bias, security breaches and system failures. The regulations also state that "No personal data of any person shall be used to train, test, or refine any AI System without the prior approval of the Appropriate Authority and, where applicable, in compliance with applicable data protection law."
