Supreme Court Draft Regulations on AI in Courts – Explained

AI in Courts Latest News

• The Supreme Court has released draft regulations governing the use of Artificial Intelligence in courts, proposing a complete ban on using AI for judicial decision-making, sentencing, and bail determinations.

About Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial System

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. In the judicial context, AI tools can assist in:
  • Legal research and precedent retrieval.
  • Document review and summarisation.
  • Case management and scheduling.
  • Transcription of court proceedings.
  • Translation of judgments and pleadings.
  • Predictive analytics for case outcomes.

‹ ›

Global Trends in Judicial AI

• Several countries have begun experimenting with AI in their judicial systems:
  • United States: Uses AI tools for risk assessment in bail and sentencing decisions, though these have faced criticism for bias.
  • China: Has deployed AI judges and “smart courts” for handling certain types of cases.
  • United Kingdom: Uses AI for legal research and document analysis.
  • Estonia: Considering AI judges for small claims cases.

Background and Need for Regulation in India

• The push for AI regulations in courts has been driven by several factors:
  • Incidents of AI Hallucination: There have been instances where AI-generated content has appeared in court orders with factual errors or fabricated citations, prompting the Supreme Court to express “institutional concern” about the misuse of AI in judicial processes.
  • Risk of Bias: AI systems trained on historical data can perpetuate or amplify biases, particularly affecting vulnerable groups. This raises serious concerns about the right to a fair trial and equality before the law.
  • Privacy Concerns: The use of AI involves processing large volumes of personal data, raising concerns under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
  • Need for Uniform Standards: Different courts and tribunals have been adopting AI tools independently, leading to inconsistencies and the need for uniform regulatory standards.

News Summary

• The Supreme Court has released the draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” for public consultation. 
• The framework was prepared under the aegis of the Supreme Court’s AI Committee, chaired by Justice P.S. Narasimha.
• The draft regulations are open for public comments until June 20, 2026.

Core Principle: AI as an Assistant, Not a Decision-Maker

• The fundamental principle underlying the draft regulations is that AI use in court processes will remain “strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority.” 
• Every AI system:
  • Shall function solely in an assistive capacity.
  • Shall not supplant or compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority.
  • The ultimate authority to determine matters of law, fact, and justice shall vest exclusively in judicial officers.

Absolutely Prohibited Uses of AI

• Regulation 20 of the draft lists specific uses of AI that are absolutely prohibited in the following court processes:
• Judicial Decision-Making
  • AI systems cannot independently determine judicial outcomes.
  • Cannot pass sentences or perform adjudicatory functions.
• Risk Scoring Prohibition
  • The draft prohibits AI-based risk scoring systems from being used to:
  • Assess the flight risk of accused persons.
  • Predict recidivism (likelihood of re-offending).
  • Determine bail eligibility.
  • Evaluate the credibility of parties or witnesses.
• Predictive Profiling
  • Courts are barred from using AI to:
  • Predict or profile the future behaviour of litigants, accused persons, witnesses, or lawyers.
  • Conduct predictive analysis that could prejudice judicial proceedings.
• Black Box AI Systems
  • The framework prohibits the deployment of:
  • Opaque or unexplainable “black box” AI systems in matters affecting legal rights or personal liberty.
  • AI systems whose decision-making processes cannot be transparently explained.
• Surveillance Restrictions
  • AI-based surveillance or continuous monitoring of judges, lawyers, and litigants is banned.
  • Exception only when specifically authorised by law.
• Data Privacy
  • Personal data cannot be used to train, test, or refine AI systems without prior approval of the appropriate authority.
  • All AI systems must comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Transparency and Disclosure Requirements

• Mandatory Disclosure: A critical feature of the draft is the requirement for transparency and disclosure when AI tools are used:
  • Lawyers and litigants must disclose AI-assisted filings to the court.
  • Disclosure must be made through a prescribed declaration.
  • The declaration applies to Pleadings, Documents, and Evidence
• Court’s Power to Probe: Courts are empowered to seek details regarding:
  • The AI system used.
  • The extent of AI assistance in preparing the material.
  • The verification steps undertaken before filing.
• Fairness and Non-Discrimination: The draft mandates that AI systems must be:
  • Designed, trained, and deployed in a manner that promotes fairness.
  • Free from discrimination on grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, gender, disability, language, economic status, or any other ground prohibited under the Constitution.

Special Protection for Vulnerable Groups

• Special care must be taken to protect the rights and interests of:
  • Women, Children, Persons with disabilities, Marginalised and minority communities and Persons from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds

Proposed Regulatory Framework

• Apex Body at the Supreme Court: The draft proposes a permanent, full-time apex body at the Supreme Court to regulate and promote innovation in judicial AI.
• AI Committees at Each Court: The draft also calls for the establishment of AI committees at:
• • The Supreme Court
  • Every High Court
  • These committees would oversee, regulate, and facilitate responsible AI adoption within their jurisdictions.

Significance of the Draft Regulations

• Safeguarding Judicial Independence: The regulations reinforce the constitutional principle that judicial functions must be exercised by duly appointed judicial officers, not by machines.
• Protecting Personal Liberty: By prohibiting AI in bail decisions and risk scoring, the regulations protect against algorithmic bias that could affect personal liberty.
• Ensuring Transparency: Mandatory disclosure requirements promote accountability in legal filings and prevent the misuse of AI.
• Promoting Responsible Innovation: The “presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption” balances innovation with ethical considerations.
• Setting Global Standards: India’s framework could serve as a model for other jurisdictions grappling with similar challenges.

Source: TH | IE