AI Can Assist, Not Decide Cases, Says SC Draft Rules
All AI tools will have to undergo in-house audits at least once a year. Any violation of prohibited AI use must be reported to the AI Secretariat and placed before the AI Committee, which may order remedial steps, including suspension of the AI system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has released a 35-page preliminary draft of the “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026”, laying down permissible and prohibited uses of AI in the judiciary and making it clear that no judicial outcome can be reached through algorithmic decision-making alone.
The draft regulations aim to govern the use of AI in courts on the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence. They also propose an institutional framework for responsible AI adoption across India’s judicial system.
The framework comes amid concerns over the misuse of AI tools, including instances where AI-generated non-existent case laws were cited and even influenced judicial proceedings.
The Artificial Intelligence Committee of the Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the public by June 20.
The draft permits the use of AI in case management, identification of defects in new filings, cause-list preparation, hearing scheduling and docket prioritisation. It will apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, all courts, tribunals and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions in India.
The draft states that AI may assist judicial processes but cannot replace human judgment. It says every AI system must function only in an assistive capacity and must not compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority by a duly appointed judicial officer.
The regulations prohibit the use of AI for reaching judicial outcomes, including judgments, sentencing or determining the credibility of witnesses. All adjudicatory functions must follow a “human-in-the-loop” approach, with final decision-making authority resting only with judicial officers.
“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,” the draft says.
The draft also bars the use of AI to predict, profile or infer the future conduct of parties, accused persons, witnesses or legal representatives. It prohibits AI-based surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, advocates, litigants or any person connected with court premises or court processes.
It further states that no AI-generated output can be submitted to a court as an independent source of evidence without full disclosure that it was AI-generated.
The draft allows AI to be used for legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification, summarising pleadings and judgments, translation of judgments and legal documents, automated transcription of proceedings and guided chatbots to help litigants navigate court procedures.
It also says that no personal data can be used to train, test or refine any AI system without prior approval of the appropriate authority and compliance with data protection law.
To oversee implementation, the draft proposes a three-tier institutional framework, including a permanent apex regulatory authority at the Supreme Court level, chaired by a Supreme Court judge. It also proposes dedicated AI committees in every High Court and a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence to provide technical advice to the judiciary.
All AI tools will have to undergo in-house audits at least once a year. Any violation of prohibited AI use must be reported to the AI Secretariat and placed before the AI Committee, which may order remedial steps, including suspension of the AI system.