A complete ban on using artificial intelligence (AI) to decide judicial outcomes; restrictions on AI tools that predict or profile parties and witnesses; and a prohibition on undisclosed or unexplainable AI systems in court processes—these are among the draft regulations proposed by the Supreme Court AI Committee on the use of the technology in courts.
The preliminary draft of the ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026’ published by the top court on Wednesday emphasises that the use of AI in court processes will always “remain strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority”.
Every AI system, it says, will function solely in an assistive capacity and “shall not supplant or compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority by a duly appointed judicial officer” and “the ultimate authority to determine matters of law, fact and justice shall vest exclusively in the judicial officers of the competent jurisdiction”.
The committee—chaired by Supreme Court judge Justice P S Narasimha, and including Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva, Raja Vijayraghavan V, Anoop Chitkara, and Suraj Govindaraj as members—has now sought the views and suggestions of all stakeholders and the general public on the draft recommendations before finalising them. The suggestions have to be submitted by June 20.
What the draft says
As per the draft, AI systems used in court processes “shall be designed, trained and deployed in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids discrimination”. “No AI System shall be deployed that perpetuates, amplifies, or introduces bias on the grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, gender, disability, language, economic status, or any other ground prohibited under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force and special care shall be taken to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable groups including women, children, persons with disabilities, marginalised and minority communities, and persons from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds,” it adds.
The systems will be subject to the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
To ensure data integrity, the recommendations say that the AI systems will be trained and operated on the basis of data that is accurate, representative, lawfully obtained, and, to the extent feasible, free from discriminatory bias.
Where AI can be used, where it can’t
As per the draft, permissible uses of AI include for case management, cause list preparation, hearing scheduling, transcription of court proceedings, translation of judgments etc, legal research, administrative functions including case filing assistance, defect scrutiny, record management and judicial resource allocation, conversational AI assistants and guided chatbots to assist litigants and other stakeholders in accessing court services and understanding procedural requirements, accessibility services for persons with disabilities or language barriers and anonymisation of court records.
Among the prohibitions, the draft says that 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, or to perform the function of adjudication or sentencing in any matter without mandatory human-in-the-loop. It added that any output of an AI system in relation to adjudicative or sentencing questions shall be treated as advisory only and will be subject to independent judicial evaluation.
The proposal says that “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” and that “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”.
It adds that no AI system should 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”.
A regulatory body
The draft proposes a permanent, full-time apex body at the Supreme Court “to regulate and promote innovation, integration, governance, oversight, standard-setting and policy development on artificial intelligence in judiciary”.
The apex body, it recommends, would include two Supreme Court judges nominated by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), one of whom shall serve as ex-officio chairperson; two high court Chief Justices nominated by the CJI; two high court judges nominated by the CJI; one member from an institution of national importance or any institution of repute, as may be nominated by the CJI; an officer not below the rank of joint secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology; a finance expert, to be nominated by the CJI; a cybersecurity expert, to be nominated by the CJI; one or more advocates of standing, nominated by the CJI with expertise in technology related laws or data privacy or related fields; and the professor heading the field of Artificial Intelligence at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.
It also calls for an AI committee at the Supreme Court and every high court “to oversee, regulate and facilitate the responsible adoption and governance of AI within its jurisdiction, in accordance with the minimum mandatory standards laid down by the apex body”.
The draft also prescribes the responsibilities of various authorities tasked with implementing AI in the judiciary.
