.webp)
The Supreme Court of India has taken a major step toward regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the country's justice system by releasing a draft framework that would govern how AI tools can be used in courts and tribunals nationwide. The proposed regulations have been opened for public feedback until June 20, 2026.
AI Can Assist, But Not Replace Judges
At the core of the draft "Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026" is a clear principle: AI may assist judicial work, but it cannot replace human decision-making.
The proposed rules state that AI systems must operate only in an assistive role and cannot interfere with the independent exercise of judicial authority. Judicial officers will remain solely responsible for deciding questions of law, facts, and justice.
As the draft framework notes,
“Every AI System shall function solely in an assistive capacity and shall not supplant or compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority.”
Lawyers Must Reveal AI-Assisted Filings
One of the most significant proposals is a mandatory disclosure requirement for lawyers and litigants using AI tools.
Under the draft regulations, if AI is used to prepare pleadings, documents, submissions, or evidence, that fact must be disclosed to the court at the time of filing. Courts may also ask parties to explain which AI tool was used, the extent of its involvement, and the steps taken to verify the accuracy of the content.
The framework further clarifies that parties cannot escape responsibility by blaming AI-generated errors.
“If any document, pleading, or evidence submitted to a Court is found to be fabricated, false, misleading, or inaccurate by reason of its AI-generated character, the person submitting the same shall bear full responsibility,” the draft states.
Where AI May Be Used
The proposed regulations encourage the responsible use of AI to improve efficiency and access to justice.
Permitted uses include legal research, citation verification, translation of judgments and pleadings, document summarisation, transcription of court proceedings, case management, hearing scheduling, cause-list preparation, record management, accessibility tools for persons with disabilities, and AI-powered assistance for court users.
The Supreme Court has also proposed a policy favouring responsible AI adoption where it can reduce delays and improve court administration.
Strict Restrictions on AI
The draft draws firm boundaries around areas where AI cannot be used.
AI systems would be prohibited from deciding cases, passing sentences, determining bail eligibility, assessing flight risk, evaluating witness credibility, or predicting the future conduct of litigants, witnesses, or accused persons. Courts would also be barred from using AI-driven surveillance or opaque “black-box” systems in matters affecting rights and personal liberty.
The regulations additionally recognize the risk of AI “hallucinations” - situations where AI generates information that appears convincing but is inaccurate or fabricated. Such outputs would remain advisory and require human verification before being relied upon.
New Oversight Mechanism Planned
To supervise AI deployment, the draft proposes the creation of a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court level, comprising judges, technology experts, cybersecurity specialists, legal professionals, and government representatives.
The framework also envisages AI Committees in the Supreme Court and High Courts, annual audits of AI systems, incident-reporting mechanisms, and a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence to evaluate emerging technologies before their adoption.
Public Consultation Open
The Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions from legal professionals, technology experts, stakeholders, and members of the public before finalising the regulations. Feedback can be submitted to the AI Committee by June 20, 2026.
If adopted, the regulations would create India's first comprehensive framework governing the use of AI across the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals, and statutory adjudicatory bodies.
