Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026

By

On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court issued draft regulations to govern the use of AI in courts.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN ADOPTION, DEPLOYMENT AND USE OF AI SYSTEMS IN COURTS:

(1) The use of Artificial Intelligence in Court processes shall at all times remain strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority.

(2) The adoption and use of AI Systems in Courts shall be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and any other law for the time being in force.

(3) The AI Systems used in Court processes shall be designed, trained and deployed in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids discrimination. 

(4) Every AI System used in Court processes shall meet high standards of transparency and explainability.

PERMISSIBLE AND PROHIBITED USES:

Permisible Use:

(a) case management (including identification of defects in new filings), cause list preparation, hearing scheduling and docket prioritisation; 

(b) automated transcription of court proceedings, subject to mandatory review and certification of accuracy by a Designated Officer; 

(c) translation of judgments, orders, pleadings and other legal documents, subject to human verification of accuracy and fidelity to the original; 

(d) legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification and document summarisation; 

(e) administrative functions including case filing assistance, defect scrutiny, record management and judicial resource allocation; 

(f) conversational AI Assistants and guided chatbots to assist litigants and other stakeholders in accessing Court services and understanding procedural requirements, subject to human oversight of their functioning; 

(g) accessibility services including text-to-speech, speech-to-text, Braille translation and visual assistance tools, for persons with disabilities or language barriers; 

(h) document authenticity verification and fraud detection in administrative processes, subject to mandatory human review of all outputs before any action is taken; 

(i) anonymisation of judgments, orders and Court records for publication in the public domain; 

(j) analytical tools for judicial administration, court performance assessment and backlog monitoring and management; and 

(k) auto-generation of prescribed formats, notices and summons with metadata merge including automated preparation of administrative documents. 

Prohibited uses of AI:

(a) no personal data of any person shall be used to train, test, or refine any AI System without the prior approval of the Appropriate Authority and, where applicable, in compliance with applicable data protection law; 

(b) 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 and the human judicial authority shall be the determinative authority in all adjudicative decisions; 

(c) no AI System shall perform the function of adjudication or sentencing in any matter without mandatory Human-in-the-Loop and any output of an AI System in relation to adjudicative or sentencing questions shall be treated as advisory only and shall be subject to independent judicial evaluation; 

(d) no AI System shall be used for Risk Scoring for any purpose in Court processes, including the assessment of flight risk, prediction of recidivism, evaluation of bail eligibility, or determination of the credibility of parties or witnesses; 

(e) no undisclosed, opaque, or unexplainable AI System shall be used in any Court process that may materially affect the lawful rights or personal liberty of any party; 

(f) no AI System shall be used to predict, profile, or infer the future conduct or behaviour of parties, accused persons, witnesses, or legal representatives in any Court process; 

(g) no AI System shall be used for the surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, advocates, litigants, or any other person within or in connection with Court premises or Court processes, except as may be specifically authorised by applicable law for the time being in force; 

(h) no AI-generated output shall be submitted to a Court as an independent source of evidence without full and transparent disclosure of its AI-generated character; and 

(i) no AI System shall be used in any manner that may compromise the confidentiality of judicial deliberations or the independence of the judicial decision-making process. 

Apex Body.–– 

(1) There shall be constituted a permanent, full-time Apex Body at the Supreme Court of India to regulate and promote innovation, integration, governance, oversight, standard-setting and policy development on Artificial Intelligence in judiciary. 

(2) The Apex Body shall consist of the following Members, namely:–– 

(a) two Judges of the Supreme Court of India, nominated by the Chief Justice of India, one of whom shall serve as the Chairperson of the Apex Body, ex of icio; 

(b) two Chief Justices of High Courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India in consultation with senior puisne Judges, ex of icio; 

(c) two Judges of High Courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India, ex of icio; 

(d) one Member from an Institution of national importance or any institution of repute, as may be nominated by the Chief Justice of India; 

(e) an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India, ex of icio; 

(f) an expert in Finance, to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India; 

(g) an expert in Cybersecurity, to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India; 

(h) one or more advocates of standing, nominated by the Chief Justice of India, with expertise in technology related laws or data privacy or related fields; and 

(i) the Professor heading the field of Artificial Intelligence at the National Judicial Academy (NJA), Bhopal, ex of icio: Provided that the Apex Body may co-opt such additional experts from Research Institutions or academic bodies as it deems necessary, on a case-to-case or standing basis, with the permission of the Chief Justice of India.

Functions of Apex Body.–– The functions of the Apex Body shall be– 

(a) to ensure that no AI system, whether autonomous AI agent or static predictive model or any AI Tool, is in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or any law for the time being in force and are in compliance with the operational safeguards; 

(b) to benchmark and integrate cutting-edge AI Systems into the Indian Judicial System, in alignment with the highest global standards; 

(c) to uphold the Governing Principles as provided under Chapter II; 

(d) to strive for realising the vision of the AI Committee; 

(e) to coordinate with High Court AI Committees to ensure a harmonised national approach to AI governance in Courts; 

(f) to liaise with MeitY, the National Informatics Centre (NIC), the Data Protection Board, CERT-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team), or any other statutory or regulatory body on matters concerning AI in Courts; 

(g) to hear and recommend appropriate actions in respect of grievances arising out of usage of AI Systems and AI Tools; 

(h) to publish an Annual Governance Report on the state of AI in Indian Courts; and 

(i) to discharge such other functions as the Chief Justice of India may, from time to time, assign. 

Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rural Local Bodies in Kerala Receive Over ₹260 Crores as First Instalment of XV Finance Commission Grants

By
The Union Government has released ₹260.20 crores to Rural Local Bodies in Kerala as XV Finance Commission grants for the Financial Year 2025- 26. The amount represents the first instalment of Untied Grants and covers all 14 District Panchayats, 152 Block Panchayats and 9,414 Gram Panchayats in the State. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj and the Ministry of Jal Shakti (Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation) recommend the release of XV FC Grants for RLBs/PRIs, which is subsequently released by the Ministry of Finance in two installments during a financial year. Untied Grants are meant to be utilized by Rural Local Bodies/PRIs for location-specific felt needs under the 29 subjects listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution, except for salaries and other establishment expenditures. Tied Grants, on the other hand, are earmarked for basic services relating to (a) sanitation and maintenance of ODF status including management and treatment of household waste, human excreta and fec...
Read more

Russian parliament passed a bill to revoke its ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

By
Relevance:  Russia revokes ratification of nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT) - ICAN But it affirmed that it will  retain its cooperation with the treaty’s verification system and implementing organisation.  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which opened for signature in 1996, was intended to prohibit all nuclear weapon test explosions. Over 2,000 nuclear tests occurred between 1945 and 1996: the United States (1,000+), the Soviet Union (700+), France (200+), the United Kingdom and China (45 each). As at January 2013, 183 countries had signed the Treaty, of which 158 have also ratified it, including three of the nuclear weapon states (France, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom). However, 44 specific nuclear technology holder countries must sign and ratify before the CTBT can enter into force. Of these, eight are still missing: China, Egypt, India , Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the US. India , North Korea and Pakista...
Read more