Supreme Court Releases Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026
The Supreme Court of India has released the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 for public consultation. Prepared under the aegis of the Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence Committee, the draft seeks to establish a governance framework for the use of AI across courts, tribunals, and statutory adjudicatory bodies. The framework is built on the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence.
The release comes shortly after the Supreme Court took cognizance of a trial court relying on alleged AI-generated non-existent judgments and observed that the issue directly affects the integrity of the adjudicatory process. It also follows the Supreme Court’s 2025 White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and Judiciary, which examined the opportunities and risks associated with AI in the justice system and highlighted the need for ethical safeguards, transparency, accountability, and institutional oversight. The draft regulations may therefore be seen as part of the judiciary’s broader effort to regulate the responsible use of AI in court processes.
AI May Assist Courts, But Cannot Replace Judges
The central principle of the draft is contained in Regulation 4, which recognises human primacy and judicial independence. AI systems may assist judicial and administrative functions, but adjudication remains the responsibility of human judges.
The draft adopts a balanced approach. While Regulation 16 creates a presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption and Regulation 17 promotes “Innovation over Restraint”, Regulation 20 identifies specific uses of AI that are prohibited in court processes. These include AI-only decision-making, AI-based risk scoring, predictive profiling, use of opaque or unexplainable AI systems in matters affecting rights or liberty, undisclosed AI-generated evidence, and AI uses that compromise judicial independence or confidentiality.
This approach broadly aligns with existing AI policies issued by the Gujarat and Kerala High Courts, both of which emphasise that AI is an assistive tool and cannot replace judicial reasoning or decision-making.
Permissible Uses of AI
Regulation 19 permits AI to be used in a range of administrative and support functions, including case management, scheduling, transcription, translation, legal research assistance, citation verification, document summarisation, accessibility services, anonymisation of judgments, and court administration.
The draft therefore does not seek to restrict AI altogether. Instead, it attempts to define the circumstances in which AI may be deployed while preserving human oversight and accountability.
Transparency and Disclosure
One of the most significant provisions for legal practitioners is Regulation 43, which deals with transparency and disclosure.
The draft contemplates disclosure requirements where AI tools are used in court-related processes and seeks to ensure that AI-generated content remains identifiable and capable of verification. The emphasis is on transparency rather than prohibition, reflecting the reality that AI tools are increasingly being used in legal practice.
Data Protection and Judicial Confidentiality
Data governance is a recurring theme throughout the draft.
Regulations 10, 47, and 48 address privacy, data protection, and sensitive judicial data. The framework seeks to regulate the handling of court data, limit unauthorised transfers to external systems, and ensure appropriate safeguards when AI systems process sensitive judicial information.
These concerns mirror safeguards found in the Gujarat and Kerala High Court policies, both of which caution against uploading confidential case information, personal identifiers, privileged communications, or sensitive litigation-related material to public AI platforms.
Oversight and Accountability
The draft establishes a comprehensive oversight framework covering the entire lifecycle of AI systems.
Regulations 35 to 45 provide for oversight and accountability measures, including controlled environment testing, AI Registers, audits, incident databases, transparency requirements, annual reporting, and review mechanisms. The objective is to ensure that AI systems remain subject to continuous supervision and evaluation after deployment.
The draft also provides for grievance redressal mechanisms under Regulations 52 and 53.
A New Institutional Framework
A notable feature of the draft is the creation of dedicated AI governance structures within the judiciary.
Regulation 22 proposes an Apex Body to oversee AI governance, supported by specialised committees dealing with technical, judicial, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and data-management issues. Regulation 32 further proposes a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) to support research, evaluation, and policy development.
These proposals reflect themes previously discussed in the Supreme Court’s 2025 White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and Judiciary, which highlighted the need for governance structures, ethical safeguards, capacity building, disclosure requirements, and institutional oversight.
What the Draft Means for Stakeholders
For lawyers, the draft signals increased emphasis on transparency and verification when AI tools are used in legal work. For litigants, it provides safeguards against AI-driven adjudication and establishes grievance redressal mechanisms. For judges and court staff, the framework introduces training and capacity-building requirements under Regulation 49. For technology providers, the draft creates a structured regulatory environment governing engagement with courts and judicial data.
Consultation Process and the Road Ahead
The Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions on the draft regulations until 20 June 2026, which may be submitted to the Member Secretary, AI Committee, Supreme Court of India at office.regcc@sci.nic.in.
The draft represents the judiciary’s first comprehensive attempt to establish a uniform framework for the adoption, oversight, and governance of Artificial Intelligence in court processes. While the consultation process may result in further revisions, the draft clearly signals that AI is expected to play an increasing role in judicial administration but within a framework that preserves judicial independence, accountability, and human decision-making.
Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely for legal research purposes and do not constitute legal opinion, legal advice, solicitation, or professional guidance of any nature. The views are personal to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of PJ Law Offices (www.pjlaw.in), its principal, representatives, associates, retainers, affiliates (collectively, “PJLaw”). Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein. PJLaw makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy or completeness of the contents and expressly disclaims all liability arising from reliance upon or use of the same.
