Courts May Use AI, Judges Retain Control: Inside Supreme Court’s Draft AI Regulations

On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court issued the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, proposing a structured framework for integrating AI into the judicial system while safeguarding constitutional values, fairness, and judicial independence.

Also Read: From Civil Courts & Constitutionalism to AI in Judiciary: Key Debates Define Day 3 of IIDW 2026

Key takeaways:

1. The draft Regulations have been published to invite feedback from stakeholders until 20 June 2026. The feedback can be shared through email addressed to Member Secretary, AI Committee, Supreme Court of India at email ID office.regcc@sci.nic.in.

2. They apply to the use, deployment, or integration of AI in:

   • Judicial functions

   • Adjudicatory functions

   • Administrative functions

   • The Supreme Court

   • All High Courts

   • All subordinate Courts

   • Tribunals exercising adjudicatory functions

   • statutory Commissions performing adjudicatory roles across India.

Also Read: Artificial Intelligence in Trial Courts: Promise, Peril, and Prudence

3. The adoption and use of AI in courts is governed by the following foundational principles:

   • Human Primacy and judicial independence

   • Rule of Law

   • Fairness and non-discrimination

   • Transparency

   • Accountability

   • Continuous oversight

   • Data protection

   • Purpose limitation

   • Data Integrity

   • Cyber security

   • Responsible adoption

   • Innovation over restraint

4. The draft Regulations permit AI for limited administrative and assistive functions, including:

   • Case management and scheduling

   • Legal research and document summarization

   • Translation and transcription services

   • Chatbots for litigant assistance

   • Accessibility tools

   • Fraud detection and document verification

   • Court performance analytics

5. AI system may be used only in a permissible manner and strictly prohibit:

   • unauthorised use of personal data

   • AI-only decisions in judicial outcomes

   • AI adjudication or sentencing without human control

   • AI-based risk scoring for bail, recidivism, or credibility

   • opaque or non-explainable AI affecting rights or liberty

   • predictive profiling of persons in court proceedings

   • surveillance of Judges, lawyers, or litigants

   • undisclosed AI-generated material as evidence

   • any AI use undermining judicial confidentiality or independence.

6. These prohibitions are absolute and non-negotiable, reinforcing that AI can assist but never replace judicial reasoning or compromise personal liberty.

Also Read: Verify Before You File: UK High Court on AI Hallucinations, Unverified Submissions and Solicitors’ Duty to the Court

7. A multi-layered governance framework is proposed, comprising:

   • an Apex Body at the Supreme Court level

   • AI Committees at the High Court level

   • dedicated AI Secretariats

   • specialised technical, cybersecurity, finance, and data management committees.

8. The draft places emphasis on monitoring and risk control:

   • Mandatory Technical and Ethical Impact Assessments before deployment

   • Regular audits of AI systems

   • Creation of an AI Register documenting all tools used

   • Establishment of an AI Incident Database for tracking failures and risks

   • Controlled testing environments before full-scale deployment

9. The framework aligns with existing data protection laws, including the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and mandates:

   • Protection of sensitive judicial data

   • Data minimization and anonymization

   • Restrictions on transferring data to external systems

   • Regular cybersecurity audits

10. The Regulations establish a clear grievance redressal mechanism and expressly preserve the right of affected persons to pursue all other legal remedies available under law for harm caused by AI use in court processes.

Read more: LIDW26 Panel Takes on Due Process, Public Policy and AI Risks

Read more: AI Governance, Professional Obligations, and the Question of Critical Thinking at Cyprus Arbitration Day 2026