The Supreme Court of India’s AI Committee has released a set of draft rules to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence in the Indian legal system. The draft rules, titled Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, establish a “human-in-the-loop” philosophy, where AI is used to assist in administrative tasks, but not to supplant, compromise, or dilute human judgment in adjudication.
The draft rules have been placed in the public domain, with stakeholders and legal professionals given until June 20 to submit their comments and suggestions. Once finalized, the regulations will apply uniformly across all judicial tiers: the Supreme Court, High Courts, district courts, tribunals, and statutory commissions. The framework explicitly dictates that AI must function strictly in an assistive capacity and cannot supplant, compromise, or dilute the independent exercise of judicial authority by an appointed officer.
Permitted and Prohibited AI Functions
Permitted AI Functions (The Assistive Suite) include legal research & precedent retrieval, citation verification & document summarization, real-time translation of judgments & transcription, case management, scheduling, & defect scrutiny, accessibility tools for persons with disabilities, and public-facing chatbots for litigants. Prohibited functions include deciding cases, determining bail eligibility, assessing witness credibility, and predicting future conduct of litigants.
The restrictions specifically target algorithmic bias by banning “risk-scoring systems”-predictive tools that have courted intense controversy in Western jurisdictions for reinforcing racial and socioeconomic biases in bail and sentencing determinations. The draft rules also ban “risk-scoring systems” that have been criticized for reinforcing racial and socioeconomic biases in Western jurisdictions.
Strict Liability for Lawyers
Under Regulation 43(3), if a lawyer uses an AI tool to prepare any document, pleading, or evidence, the “AI-assisted character” of that material must be disclosed to the court at the time of submission. Furthermore, Regulation 43(4) empowers judges to demand granular details about the specific AI system used, the extent of its contribution, and the exact verification steps taken by the legal team to ensure accuracy.
Regulation 43(6) Warning: If a submission is found to be fabricated or misleading due to its AI-generated nature, the person submitting it bears full, unescapable responsibility. The draft explicitly bars advocates and judicial officers from blaming the opacity of an algorithmic “black box” or a system hallucination as a defense for submitting harmful, inaccurate, or illegal content.
The Supreme Court is proposing a governance framework to manage the transition, including a permanent national regulatory body, AI committees, and a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence. Every AI tool deployed in an Indian court must undergo mandatory technical, legal, and ethical audits at intervals not exceeding one year.
High Courts will also be required to maintain public AI Registers and contribute to a centralized AI Incident Database to track malfunctions, data breaches, and algorithmic bias. The framework imposes severe restrictions on private technology vendors, requiring explicit institutional approval and airtight safeguards in contracts.
These audits will ensure that AI systems are functioning as intended and not introducing bias into the legal process.
The Supreme Court will also establish a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence, which will be responsible for evaluating emerging AI tools and providing technical support to the judiciary. This centre will help to ensure that AI systems are used in a responsible and transparent manner.
Implementation and Enforcement
The draft rules propose the establishment of a permanent national regulatory body, which will be responsible for setting national standards for AI use in courts and approving AI software for judicial use. This body will comprise Supreme Court and High Court judges, cybersecurity experts, technology specialists, and tech-law advocates.
This will help to identify and address any issues related to AI use in courts.
Contracts with tech vendors must feature airtight safeguards, including strict data anonymization and minimization protocols.
The data usage must comply fully with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Any tool trained or developed using Indian court data or state resources must remain the property of the judiciary, or at minimum, grant the courts a perpetual, royalty-free license to the software and its outputs.
Leave a Reply