Balancing Innovation And Judicial Independence: Understanding The Draft Regulations For Use Of Artificial Understanding (AI) In Courts, 2026

I. Introduction

On June 3rd, 2026, the Supreme Court of India released a preliminary draft named ‘‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026’, regulating the usage of artificial intelligence in the courts across India. These regulations play a major role in the promotion of the adoption of the use of artificial intelligence across the judicial system while upholding the principle of judicial independence, data protection, transparency, accountability and the principle of primacy. Currently, the draft has been published and is in a nascent phase, inviting comments and suggestions from the relevant stakeholders by 20th June 2026.

The regulation, upon coming into force, will have its application across all judicial, administrative and adjudicatory functions of the Supreme Court and all other courts, tribunals and statutory commissions. The regulation, through its principles and exhaustive lists, has sought to delineate areas in which the use of artificial intelligence can be employed for assistive and administrative purposes, and where its use must be replaced by human intellect. Furthermore, the regulations establish institutional mechanisms responsible for policy formulation and execution, grievance redressal, specialised capacity building, and training methodologies. As the consultation process is currently awaiting comments and suggestions from the stakeholders, the far-reaching implications and effects of the integration of artificial intelligence in the justice system warrant closer scrutiny.

II. Guiding Principles Of The Draft Regulations

The regulations strive to strike a balance between “complement” and “compromise” by nullifying overreach and limiting the usage to assistive purposes. “Regulation 4” of the draft states that human primacy shall prevail in the use of artificial intelligence at all times, with human authority and judgment governing all functions restricted only for assistive purposes, matters of justice, fact and law shall vest completely with judicial authority. The principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution is embodied in the draft regulations via “Regulation 6” wherein a protection against discrimination based on race, religion, caste, sex, gender, disability, language, economic status, or any other ground prohibited under the Constitution or any law for the time has been granted in the process of integration of artificial intelligence into the functioning of the courts.

Artificial Intelligence often faces issues of black-box models that make the functionality of the models questionable. In view of this issue, “Regulation 7” and “Regulation 13” provide for the explainability of the functioning of the models and high scrutiny towards opaque models, complemented by continuous oversight of the systems deployed in the courts. Data protection is also one of the major principles of the regulations that provide for the processing of data, which shall align with the principles listed in the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 . Lastly, the regulation has also stressed the adaptation of innovation for the continued development of this initiative so as to restrict stagnation and see continued growth over restraint.

III. Scope Of The Usage Of Artificial Intelligence in Indian Courts

The permissible usage of the AI includes administrative and assistive functions, including case management, cause list preparation, hearing scheduling, automated transcription, translation of legal documents, legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification, document summarisation, record management, and resource allocation. The regulations further contemplate the use of conversational AI assistants, accessibility tools for persons with disabilities, anonymisation of judgments, fraud detection mechanisms and analytical tools aimed at monitoring judicial performance and managing case backlogs.

The functions intrinsic to human functions and not subject to the usage envisaged under the regulation include personal data used for training AI systems without approval from the Appropriate Authority, no judicial outcome or decisions reached solely through the usage of AI, no adjudications process to be performed by AI, no risk scoring by AI Systems, no undisclosed, opaque, or unexplainable AI System shall be used in any Court, no AI generated output shall be submitted as independent source of evidence. The regulations also prohibit the deployment of opaque or unexplainable systems in matters affecting legal rights or personal liberty, surveillance of judges or litigants, and the use of AI-generated outputs as independent evidence without transparent disclosure.

IV.Policy Making And Institutional Mechanism

The Apex Body at the Supreme Court level has the purpose of regulating and promoting innovation, integration, governance, oversight, standard-setting and policy development on Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary and occupies the top-most position in the hierarchy. Its functions also include setting standards for the use of AI in courts, approving AI tools and issuing necessary guidelines for their implementation and establishes specialised committees to ensure that AI is adopted and governed in a coordinated and effective manner. The committees constituted by the Apex Body in the discharge of its duties include the Judicial Committee, Technical Committee, Committee on Infrastructure and Finance, Case and Data Management, and Cyber Security Committee.  These committees shall frame their own procedure for meetings and decision-making with the supervision of the Apex body.

The Regulation provides for the constitution of AI Committees at the Supreme Court and the High Court levels 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 AI Committee constituted in the Supreme Court shall be deemed to be the AI Committee for Tribunals and statutory Commissions performing adjudicatory functions at the national level, and the AI Committee constituted in the respective High Court shall be deemed to be the AI Committee for Tribunals and statutory Commissions performing adjudicatory functions at the State level. The AI Committee is to be supported by a dedicated AI Secretariat.

V. The Liability Regime and Grievance Redressal Mechanisms Under The Draft

The regulation, considering the possibility of exploitation of artificial intelligence in judicial functioning, has univocally provided that all decision-making taken with the assistance of AI and the liability arising out of it shall be the exclusive responsibility of the concerned judicial or administrative officer, as mentioned in “Regulation 8”.

Additionally, “Regulation 52” provides for the invocation of the grievance redressal mechanism in case any harm is caused to any party to a proceeding as a direct or indirect effect of the prohibited use of AI provided for in the regulation. The regulations give rights to the aggrieved to approach the court under any law in respect to the harm caused by the use of AI in the court process at the earliest opportunity.

VI. Conclusion

The proposed draft regulations play a major role in attaining a significant milestone in judicial activism by promoting the integration of technology in the judicial system. This creates a progressive framework towards an efficient framework for the evolution of justice delivery while being fundamentally human-centric. While the regulations have tried to provide a holistic regime, its implications and practical aspects are still to be observed post its implementation.