Supreme Court Publishes Draft Regulations On AI Use In Judiciary, Invites Feedback

The Supreme Court has published a draft set of regulations to govern the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in courts across India and invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the general public by June 20, 2026. The draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” has been prepared under the aegis of the Supreme Court's AI Committee and seeks to establish a framework for responsible AI adoption in the judiciary based on principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence.

According to the notification issued on June 3, the proposed regulations are intended to govern the use of AI in judicial, adjudicatory and administrative functions of the Supreme Court, High Courts, tribunals and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions. The Court has stated that the framework is aimed at ensuring that AI remains a tool to assist the justice delivery system without compromising judicial independence or human decision-making.

A key feature of the draft regulations is the insistence that AI systems must remain strictly subordinate to human judgment. The draft provides that AI tools can function only in an assistive capacity and cannot replace judicial officers in determining questions of law, fact or justice. Accountability for decisions made with AI assistance will continue to rest exclusively with the concerned judicial officer.

The regulations permit the use of AI for a range of functions including case management, scheduling, cause-list preparation, transcription of proceedings, translation of legal documents, legal research, citation verification, document summarisation, accessibility services for persons with disabilities, anonymisation of judgments and court records, and administrative functions. However, most such uses would require prior approval and human supervision.

At the same time, the draft imposes several absolute prohibitions. AI systems cannot be used to independently adjudicate cases or determine judicial outcomes. The use of AI for risk scoring, including predicting recidivism, assessing flight risk, determining bail eligibility or evaluating witness credibility, is expressly barred. The regulations also prohibit AI systems from predicting future behaviour of parties or witnesses, conducting surveillance of judicial officers or litigants, or using opaque and unexplainable AI systems in matters affecting rights or personal liberty.

The draft further mandates disclosure when AI-generated content is used in court proceedings. Parties and lawyers using AI in preparing pleadings, documents or evidence would be required to disclose such use and explain the nature and extent of AI assistance. Courts would also have the power to seek details regarding the AI system used and the verification measures adopted.

To oversee AI adoption, the regulations propose the creation of a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court comprising judges, chief justices of High Courts, technical experts, cybersecurity specialists, finance experts and advocates with expertise in technology law. The Apex Body would be responsible for setting standards, approving AI systems, coordinating with High Courts and publishing annual governance reports on AI use in courts.

The framework also envisages AI Committees in the Supreme Court and every High Court, dedicated AI Secretariats, periodic technical, legal and ethical audits of AI systems, incident reporting mechanisms, cybersecurity safeguards and specialised training programmes for judges, lawyers and court staff.

The Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions on the draft regulations through email to the Member Secretary of the AI Committee by June 20, 2026.  

The High Courts of Kerala and Gujarat have issued guidelines to the district judiciary regarding the use of AI in Court work.

The Supreme Court had earlier, on its judicial side, taken cognizance of the issue of using AI-generated fake citations, and sought the responses of the bar bodies on means to regulate it.

Click here to read the draft rules