Supreme Court AI Rules Draw Firm Line Against Algorithmic Justice in Indian Courts

Lawyers welcome SC's AI rules against 'algorithmic justice'

The Supreme Court has released a draft framework for AI in courts, aiming to balance innovation with judicial safeguards. The proposed regulations emphasise AI as an assistive tool, strictly prohibiting its use for decision-making, adjudication, or sentencing, while encouraging its adoption for administrative efficiency and access to justice. Legal experts have welcomed the attempt to balance innovation with judicial safeguards after the Supreme Court on Wednesday released a draft regulatory framework governing the use of AI in courts, proposing a nationwide governance structure that encourages AI adoption while drawing firm boundaries around judicial decision-making. Lawyers from Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AZB & Partners, and Obhan Mason backed the framework's core principle that AI should remain an assistive tool and never replace judges in decision-making. While some foreign jurisdictions, particularly China, have experimented with AI-led decision-making in limited matters such as petty fines, those systems remain largely untested and unsuitable as a model for courts dealing with complex questions of rights and justice, lawyers said. Replacing judges with AI tools would be problematic because of issues such as bias, hallucinations and the lack of transparency in AI systems, they warned. The draft "Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026", released by the Supreme Court's AI Committee for public consultation, seeks to establish principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence in the deployment of AI across India's judicial system. Stakeholders have been invited to submit comments by June 20. The proposed regulations explicitly state that AI systems must remain "strictly subservient" to human judgment and judicial authority and can function only in an assistive capacity. The ultimate authority to determine matters of law, fact and justice would continue to rest exclusively with judicial officers. The framework adopts a pro-innovation stance, creating a "presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption" and encouraging courts to actively deploy AI tools that improve access to justice, reduce delays and enhance administrative efficiency. However, it simultaneously prohibits the use of AI for dispute-outcome prediction and any replacement of human decision-making. The draft regulations permit AI use in areas including legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification, document summarisation, translation, transcription, case management, backlog monitoring and accessibility services, all subject to human oversight and verification. At the same time, the regulations impose absolute prohibitions on AI-based adjudication and sentencing, risk-scoring systems, behavioural prediction of litigants or accused persons, opaque "black box" systems affecting rights or liberty, and AI-driven surveillance of judges, lawyers or litigants. These prohibitions are designated non-derogable and cannot be relaxed by any authority. Legal experts welcomed the attempt to balance innovation with judicial safeguards. Arya Tripathy, partner at law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, said the draft appropriately distinguishes between judicial decision-making and assistive functions. "The draft guidelines maintain distinction between judicial decision making and assistive functions and are aimed at striking the delicate balance," she said. While some foreign jurisdictions, particularly China, have experimented with AI-led decision-making in limited matters such as petty fines, those systems remain largely untested and unsuitable as a model for courts dealing with complex questions of rights and justice, she added. Tripathy warned that replacing judges with AI tools would be problematic because of issues such as bias, hallucinations and the lack of transparency in AI systems. "Judicial decision making requires reasoned outcomes that have been delivered through due process, which raises fundamental questions on whether AI that suffers from blackbox can ever be compared with a human judge," she said. Tripathy said these provisions could help address some of the structural inefficiencies contributing to judicial delays. However, she cautioned that even AI-assisted legal research could subtly influence judicial outcomes if judges rely excessively on machine-generated recommendations. "A bigger problem for AI in judiciary is confirmation bias," she said, adding that AI systems trained on existing precedents may reinforce prevailing legal interpretations while overlooking novel circumstances that require human empathy and judgment. Hardeep Sachdeva, senior partner at AZB & Partners, said the timing of the draft regulations was significant amid growing dependence on AI technologies. "In today's time of increasing over dependence on AI, timings couldn't have been better for the SC's draft regulations striking a careful balance between judicial innovation and judicial independence," Sachdeva said. He said that AI should remain an assistive tool for both lawyers and judges. "The framework rightly safeguards against any erosion of human analysis and judicial authority," he said, adding that even AI-powered legal research and summarisation tools require vigilance because subtle algorithmic biases could influence judicial reasoning. Sachdeva also backed the draft's outright ban on AI-led adjudication, sentencing and risk scoring, calling them essential protections for due process rights and constitutional guarantees. Essenese Obhan, managing partner of Obhan Mason, said the guidelines establish a clear policy favouring responsible adoption of AI while ensuring decision-making authority remains with judges. "The guidelines articulate a clear policy in favour of the active adoption of AI within the judiciary, while confining AI to a strictly assistive role and reserving the decision-making power of the judicial officer," Obhan said. He said the safeguard preventing AI from replacing judges was "soundly framed", particularly because the regulations place liability and verification responsibilities on the user rather than the technology itself. However, he cautioned that the effectiveness of the framework would depend on whether judicial officers genuinely verify AI-generated outputs rather than treating verification as a procedural formality. The draft regulations make judicial officers accountable for decisions made with AI assistance and specify that AI-generated outputs must be treated as advisory. Courts are required to verify such outputs before using them, and accountability cannot be avoided by citing hallucinations or opaque AI systems. Obhan said that AI-assisted legal research and summarisation would inevitably influence judicial outcomes because of potential biases embedded in training data. "Independent verification of outputs by the judicial officer therefore remains the practical safeguard against undue influence," he said. The proposed framework also establishes a comprehensive institutional architecture, including a permanent apex body at the SC to oversee AI governance, dedicated AI committees in the SC and HCs, periodic audits, incident reporting systems, transparency disclosures and an AI content verification authority for generative AI outputs. On global comparisons, Obhan said India's proposal stands out for its comprehensive nature. While the EU classifies judicial AI systems as "high-risk" under the EU AI Act, the UK relies largely on judicial guidance, Singapore has issued usage guidance for court users, and the US operates through a patchwork of court-specific directives. "Against this backdrop, the Indian draft is a more mature and forward-looking step. It is the only one to be comprehensive, to be a binding regulatory code rather than be soft guidance or ad hoc orders, and the only one to lay down clear, absolute and non-derogable prohibitions while still embracing innovation," he said. The consultation marks one of the most ambitious attempts globally to create a dedicated regulatory framework for AI in the judiciary, lawyers said.

SC's draft rules allows AI in courts, bar it in decision-making

The Supreme Court has proposed new rules for artificial intelligence in courts. These rules allow AI for tasks like legal research and drafting. However, AI will not be used to decide court cases. Judges will remain the sole decision-makers. Lawyers must disclose AI use in their filings. This framework aims to enhance efficiency while upholding judicial authority and due process. New Delhi: The Supreme Court has come out with draft regulations for the use of artificial intelligence in courts, permitting use of AI tools for legal research, drafting, translation, transcription and case management, but barring their use to determine judicial outcomes. The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 make it clear that judges alone will determine questions of law, facts and justice, and prohibit the use of AI for dispute-outcome prediction. While the draft allows lawyers to use AI tools to prepare pleadings and evidence it also proposes that they must tell the court when they do so. According to the proposed framework, deployment of AI systems that are opaque or incapable of explanation will be restricted in high-risk applications affecting the personal liberty or lawful rights of a person. The framework underlines that the technology can only be used in an assistive capacity and shall not compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority by a judge. The use of AI in court processes shall at all times remain strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority, it said. The draft comes amid concerns expressed by the top court in recent months over the growing reliance on AI by courts in rendering judgments. Experts said recent instances of AI-generated inaccuracies in legal filings should not come in the way of responsible technology adoption. "AI is a powerful tool that can enhance efficiency, reduce repetitive work, and support better legal outcomes, but accountability for the accuracy and integrity of any submission must always remain with the professional signing and submitting it," said Saakar Yadav, founder of Lexlegis AI, an AI platform for legal practitioners. "Just as a lawyer cannot disclaim responsibility for errors made by a junior associate or legal assistant, reliance on AI cannot be used as a defence for inadequate review or verification." He said legal professionals should view AI as an enabler and "not as a substitute for judgment, diligence, or accountability." "When deployed responsibly, technology can help justice accelerate without compromising the trust, reliability and due process that underpin the legal system. The objective is not merely efficiency, but enabling a justice delivery system that practitioners, judges and citizens can confidently rely upon," Yadav said. The draft framework, prepared by a Supreme Court committee chaired by Justice P S Narasimha, has been released for public consultation. Stakeholders can submit comments and suggestions until June 20.

How the Supreme Court's Draft AI Rules Would Govern Indian Courts

The Supreme Court draft regulations on AI use can be accessed here. The Supreme Court of India has published draft regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in courts, dated June 3, and has invited public comments by June 20. The regulations apply to every court in India, from the Supreme Court down to tribunals and statutory commissions. The core principle: AI can assist courts, but it cannot replace judicial decision-making. Every AI output serves only an advisory role, and final authority over law, facts, and justice rests exclusively with the judge. What AI can do in courts: * Case management: Scheduling, cause-list preparation, docket prioritisation, and defect identification in new filings. * Transcription: Of court proceedings, where a human must review and certify the output. * Translation: Translating judgments, orders, and pleadings, subject to human verification. * Legal research: Retrieving precedents, verifying citations, and summarising documents. * Administrative tasks: Assisting with case filing, record management, and the auto-generation of notices and summonses. * Litigant assistance: Powering chatbots that help litigants understand court procedures, under human oversight. * Accessibility: Supporting text-to-speech, speech-to-text, Braille translation, and visual-assistance tools. * Anonymisation: Anonymising judgments and records for publication in the public domain. * Fraud detection: Detecting fraud in administrative processes, subject to human review. What AI absolutely cannot do: These prohibitions are absolute and non-derogable. No AI system can: * Reach a judicial outcome through algorithmic decision-making (ADM) alone, meaning a process in which an algorithm, rather than a human, makes the determination. * Perform risk scoring, including predicting reoffending probability, bail eligibility, or flight risk. * Operate as a black box, meaning a system whose decision-making logic cannot be explained, in any process affecting personal liberty or legal rights. * Conduct surveillance of judges, lawyers, or litigants in connection with court premises. * Profile or predict the future behaviour of any party, witness, or legal representative. * Enter the record as independent evidence unless the submitting party fully discloses its AI-generated nature. * Use personal data for training unless approved by the appropriate authority. * Compromise the confidentiality of judicial deliberations. The disclosure requirement: Lawyers who use AI to prepare any pleading, document, or evidence must declare it at the time of submission. Courts that use AI in case management must inform the parties. Anyone using synthetic data, AI-generated audio, visual, or text content that mimics real data, must also disclose its use. The institutional structure: * Apex Body at the Supreme Court: A permanent, full-time body that governs AI across the judiciary. It will comprise two Supreme Court judges, two Chief Justices of High Courts, two High Court judges, a Joint Secretary from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and experts in cybersecurity, finance, and technology law. It will set minimum mandatory standards for all courts. * AI Committees at every High Court: These committees will comprise judges responsible for approving AI systems, monitoring compliance, and overseeing the AI Secretariat. They must meet at least once every three months. * AI Secretariat at each High Court: Headed by an officer of district judge rank, the Secretariat will maintain the AI Register and incident database, conduct audits, and handle approvals. * Centre of Research and Excellence on AI (CoRE-AI): This body will conduct research, evaluate AI tools, track international jurisprudence, and publish white papers. * AI Content Verification Authority: This authority will oversee the verification of Generative AI (GenAI)-generated content. Before deployment: Every AI system must clear a Technical and Ethical Impact Assessment covering its architecture, training data quality, risks of bias and hallucination, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, explainability, and incident reporting mechanisms. The appropriate authority must prescribe a standard assessment format within six months of the regulations coming into force. Ongoing oversight: * Every court must maintain an AI Register documenting approved systems, their scope, vendors, and audit outcomes. * Every AI system must undergo technical, legal, and ethical audits at least once a year. * Each AI Secretariat must maintain an AI Incident Database tracking malfunctions and biases, and share learnings across jurisdictions. * Every High Court must publish an Annual Transparency Report. On private vendors: No private entity can participate without prior written approval. Vendor agreements must: * Prohibit vendors from using sensitive judicial data beyond the scope of the engagement. * Prohibit vendors from retraining or fine-tuning models on court data without written approval from the AI Committee. * Require on-premises or sovereign-cloud deployment for sensitive judicial data. * Vest ownership of any tool built on judicial data in the court and prohibit vendors from claiming intellectual property rights over tools developed primarily using judicial or public resources. * Prevent vendors from sharing source code and training data with third parties, except for authorised audits. On data protection: Sensitive judicial data cannot leave court systems without written authorisation. Courts must anonymise personal data before using it for training, to the extent feasible without compromising utility, and should prefer systems that require less data processing. Grievance redressal: Any party harmed by a prohibited use of AI may apply to the court where the system was used. That court must hear the matter and pass appropriate orders. The retraining question: AI training data versus the right to be forgotten On May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered a 144-page judgment directing Google and Indian Kanoon to de-index name-based search results for petitioners in cases ending in acquittal, settlement, or discharge. The judgments remain accessible through case numbers and citations, but the platforms must remove the individuals' names from search results. The draft regulations require courts to anonymise personal data before training AI systems going forward. However, they do not address systems that have already been trained on judicial data that is later ordered to be de-indexed. Key questions remain: * What happens to a system that already trained on a judgment before a court orders it de-indexed or a name anonymised? * Does the draft provide a mechanism for a party who has obtained a de-indexing order to remove their data from an existing model's training set? * If a court's legal research tool surfaces a name that a court has ordered removed, what steps must the court take? De-indexing orders against Google and Indian Kanoon do not affect the training data of models already in operation within courts. The Delhi High Court judgment already covers more than 30 petitions filed since 2016, while the Supreme Court is separately examining the broader scope of the right to be forgotten.