UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 5 June 2026

Supreme Court Draft Regulations on AI in Courts – Explained

June 5, 2026

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

AI in Courts FAQs

Q1: What is the name of the draft regulations released by the Supreme Court?

Ans: The draft regulations are titled "Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026."

Q2: Who chairs the Supreme Court's AI Committee?

Ans: The AI Committee is chaired by Supreme Court Justice P.S. Narasimha.

Q3: What are the prohibited uses of AI under the draft regulations?

Ans: AI cannot be used for judicial decision-making, sentencing, bail determinations, risk scoring, predictive profiling, or surveillance of judicial officers.

Q4: What is Regulation 43 of the draft?

Ans: Regulation 43 mandates disclosure of AI-assisted filings by lawyers and litigants, with courts empowered to seek details about the AI system used.

Q5: Until when is the draft open for public comments?

Ans: The draft regulations are open for public comments and suggestions until June 20, 2026.

Urban Fire Safety in India: Why Residential Areas Remain the Deadliest

June 5, 2026

Urban Fire Safety in India Latest News

On June 3, 2026, a devastating fire at Flourish Stay B&B in South Delhi's Malviya Nagar claimed at least 21 lives.
A day later, a suspected short circuit sparked a fire in the ICU of a private hospital in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, killing four patients.
These incidents, along with several similar tragedies reported across the country in recent months of 2026, have once again exposed the persistent fire safety deficiencies in India's urban areas, particularly in residential and mixed-use buildings.

The Scale of the Problem: What the Data Shows

The Malviya Nagar fire is not an isolated tragedy. It reflects a systemic national failure.
According to an analysis of the 2024 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report:
- 5,888 fire-related deaths were recorded across India in 2024.
- Of these, 3,555 — roughly 60% — occurred inside homes and residential buildings.
- Six out of every ten fire deaths in India happen in the very spaces where people feel safest.
Overall fire deaths have been declining over the years. But residential buildings have consistently remained the single largest source of fire fatalities — and that trend has not changed.
Outside residential buildings, the highest fire casualties in non-residential spaces occur in hospitals and commercial areas like shopping centres.

Why Residential Buildings Are So Vulnerable

No Basic Safety Infrastructure
- Most residential spaces in India operate without the basics: no smoke alarms, no fire suppression systems, no evacuation plans, and no routine safety awareness.
- These are not luxuries — they are the minimum requirements for any building where people sleep.
Illegal Conversions and Rampant Violations
- A growing problem in Indian cities is the illegal conversion of residential buildings into commercial establishments — hotels, hostels, offices, and guesthouses — without obtaining proper licences or upgrading safety infrastructure.
- The Flourish Stay B&B is a textbook example. It was built as a home, converted into a hotel, and expanded from 6 to 26 rooms across six floors — all without commensurate fire safety upgrades.
- This pattern repeats across Delhi and other major cities.
Common Causes of Residential Fires
- Two triggers account for the vast majority of residential fires:
  - Electrical faults are the most common. High use of electrical equipment in urban areas — combined with old wiring, overloaded circuits, and faulty connections — creates persistent ignition risks.
  - LPG gas leaks are the other major cause. These happen due to pilferage from cylinders, use of non-standard equipment, failure to replace worn hosepipes, leaking O-rings, and improper handling at consumer premises.
Dense Urban Layout
- Indian urban settlements are densely packed, with narrow lanes and constricted access roads.
- When a fire breaks out, fire engines often struggle to reach the site quickly.
- Once there, the compact layout makes firefighting operations difficult and evacuation dangerous.

Why the Fire Spreads and Kills

Fires are deadlier than many people realise — not just because of flames, but because of what fire does to the surrounding environment.
According to the National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM), most victims in a fire do not die from burns.
They die from asphyxiation — the fire depletes oxygen and fills the space with smoke and toxic gases released from burning materials.
These gases choke the lungs and cause breathing failure. Additionally, the heat causes expansion of liquids, gases, and metals, often triggering secondary explosions.
The NDMA classifies fire as a "human-induced disaster" — meaning it is almost always preventable.

The Governance Gap

Fire Services: A State and Municipal Subject
- Fire services fall under the State List of the Constitution.
- Under Article 243(W), fire services have been included as a municipal function in the Twelfth Schedule.
- This means primary responsibility lies with state governments and urban local bodies (ULBs). The Centre's role is largely advisory.
The National Building Code (NBC), 2016
- The Bureau of Indian Standards published the National Building Code of India in 2016.
- This code contains detailed guidelines on construction, fire safety, smoke management, periodic audits, electrical fire prevention, and sensor-based firefighting systems.
- The problem is not the absence of rules. The problem is non-implementation.
- The Malviya Nagar fire is a direct consequence of regulatory failure — the building had expanded massively in violation of existing norms.
Resource Constraints
- The 15th Finance Commission acknowledged that fire services across India suffer from a severe lack of resources and equipment. It recommended Rs 5,000 crore for modernisation and strengthening of fire services at the state level.
- A 2022 Ministry of Home Affairs report noted a "considerable gap in operational capabilities of fire and emergency services in Indian cities."
- As cities grow taller, specialised equipment for high-rise firefighting is needed — but procurement remains slow.

Conclusion

Urban fires in India do not happen in isolation. They are the product of overlapping failures — poor construction, illegal land use, absence of safety culture, weak enforcement, and under-resourced fire departments.
Cities need a fire plan — where multiple stakeholders are alert and accountable. Until then, the pattern will repeat: a fire, public outrage, a few arrests, and no systemic change.

Source: IE | BE

Urban Fire Safety in India FAQs

Q1: Why is Urban Fire Safety in India a growing concern?

Ans: Urban Fire Safety in India is a growing concern because residential buildings account for a majority of fire-related deaths across the country.

Q2: What are the main causes of poor Urban Fire Safety in India?

Ans: Urban Fire Safety in India is affected by faulty electrical systems, LPG leaks, illegal building conversions, inadequate safety infrastructure, and weak enforcement.

Q3: Why do residential buildings remain the deadliest in Urban Fire Safety in India?

Ans: Urban Fire Safety in India remains weak because most homes lack smoke detectors, fire suppression systems, evacuation plans, and regular safety inspections.

Q4: How do governance issues affect Urban Fire Safety in India?

Ans: Urban Fire Safety in India suffers from poor implementation of safety norms, limited municipal oversight, resource shortages, and inadequate firefighting infrastructure.

Q5: What measures can improve Urban Fire Safety in India?

Ans: Urban Fire Safety in India can be strengthened through stricter enforcement of building codes, fire audits, public awareness, modern equipment, and better urban planning.

Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency: Supreme Court to Clarify the IBC and Section 138 Conflict

June 5, 2026

Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency Latest News

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench a significant legal question: Can a person undergoing insolvency proceedings use those proceedings to pause or stop a cheque bounce case against them?
Recently, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan referred the matter in the case of Dineshchand Surana v. UCO Bank, noting a clear conflict in existing Supreme Court judgments.
The matter now awaits constitution of an appropriate bench by the Chief Justice of India.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016

When a person files for personal insolvency under the IBC, the law immediately puts a moratorium — a legal pause — on all proceedings related to that person's debts.
This serves a clear purpose: while a debtor's assets are being restructured and distributed among creditors, no single creditor should be allowed to grab assets ahead of others.
Two sections govern this moratorium:
- Section 96 — An interim moratorium kicks in from the day the insolvency application is filed.
- Section 101 — A full statutory moratorium begins once the court formally accepts the application.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Section 138 makes dishonoured cheques — commonly called cheque bounce — a criminal offence.
The punishment can be imprisonment, a fine, or both. The law was designed to ensure people take cheque payments seriously.
However, over time courts have also recognised a compensatory dimension — a convicted person can be directed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant.
The offence is also compoundable, meaning the parties can settle and the case ends. This dual nature — part criminal, part compensatory — is what creates the legal tension.

The Core Legal Conflict

The fundamental question is: What is a cheque bounce case at its heart — a criminal prosecution or a debt recovery mechanism?
The answer to that question determines whether the IBC moratorium applies to it.
If it is primarily criminal, the moratorium has no business touching it — the IBC is a debt resolution framework, not a shield against crime.
But if its real purpose is to recover money owed, then it looks more like a debt proceeding, and the moratorium could logically apply.
An earlier Supreme Court judgment captured this tension perfectly, describing Section 138 as a "civil sheep in criminal wolf's clothing" — meaning it wears the costume of criminal law but its real purpose is recovering money.

The Conflict in Precedents

The Supreme Court's own judgments on this question point in opposite directions:
- P Mohanraj v. Shah Bros Ispat (2021) - Called Section 138 a "civil sheep in criminal wolf's clothing." Since its real purpose is money recovery, the moratorium should logically cover it.
- Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro (2025) - Moratorium is meant to pause civil debt recovery, not stall criminal prosecution. Accused cannot use insolvency to escape Section 138 proceedings.
The 2026 bench noted a critical problem:
- the 2025 judgment did not engage with the detailed analysis in the 2021 case, and
- the 2021 case had not fully examined the criminal dimensions of Section 138.
Neither ruling resolved the conflict cleanly. Hence the referral to a larger bench.

What the Court Suggested: A Possible Way Forward

While referring the matter, the bench offered a preliminary framework — splitting the cheque bounce case into two distinct parts and treating each differently.
On the criminal aspect — trial, conviction, imprisonment, and penal fine — the bench said the moratorium cannot apply. The IBC itself defines "debt" in a way that excludes court-imposed fines. A person cannot use insolvency to escape personal criminal accountability.
On the compensatory aspect — the court's power to direct payment of the cheque amount to the complainant — the bench said the moratorium should apply. Allowing one creditor to recover money from an insolvent person's assets during restructuring would undermine the entire logic of the IBC, which is to ensure fair and orderly distribution among all creditors.
In short, the court drew a clean line: punish the crime, but pause the compensation.

Why This Matters

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching consequences. Creditors, accused persons, and company directors who are simultaneously facing insolvency and cheque bounce proceedings all have a stake in how this question is resolved.
If moratorium fully covers Section 138, insolvent debtors could use IBC proceedings to stall cheque bounce cases — effectively using insolvency as a legal escape route.
If moratorium is fully excluded, creditors in cheque bounce cases could recover money ahead of other creditors, disrupting the orderly insolvency process.
The court's suggested middle path — separating the criminal and compensatory aspects — tries to balance both concerns. But its final acceptance depends on the larger bench.

Source: IE

Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency FAQs

Q1: What is the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency dispute?

Ans: The Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency dispute concerns whether insolvency moratorium provisions under the IBC can suspend proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138.

Q2: Why is the Supreme Court hearing the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency issue?

Ans: The Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency issue has reached a larger bench because previous Supreme Court judgments have taken conflicting positions on the matter.

Q3: How does the IBC relate to the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency debate?

Ans: In the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency debate, the IBC provides a moratorium on debt-related proceedings, raising questions about its applicability to cheque bounce cases.

Q4: What is the core legal question in the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency case?

Ans: The Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency case seeks to determine whether cheque bounce proceedings are primarily criminal prosecutions or mechanisms for debt recovery.

Q5: What solution has the Court suggested in the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency matter?

Ans: In the Cheque Bounce vs Insolvency matter, the Court suggested allowing criminal prosecution to continue while pausing compensation-related recovery during insolvency proceedings.