By Rakesh Kaidala, Senior Associate
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has rapidly transitioned from being an experimental technology to becoming an integral component of modern legal practice. Legal professionals today increasingly rely on AI-powered tools for legal research, document review, contract analysis, drafting assistance and case management. Judicial institutions across the world are similarly exploring AI to improve administrative efficiency and enhance access to justice. These developments have created opportunities to modernise justice delivery while simultaneously raising concerns regarding transparency, accountability, judicial independence, data privacy and procedural fairness.
Recognising these opportunities and risks, the Supreme Court of India has published the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026. The proposed framework is India’s first comprehensive attempt to regulate AI within the judicial ecosystem. Rather than treating AI as a substitute for judges, the Draft Regulations conceive AI as an assistive technology that must remain subordinate to human judgment. This balanced approach reflects the constitutional commitment to judicial independence while acknowledging that technological innovation is indispensable for improving judicial administration. The Draft creates an institutional governance framework built upon principles such as human primacy, transparency, explainability, accountability, cybersecurity and responsible innovation.
Why the Draft Regulations Were Necessary
India’s judiciary has steadily embraced digital transformation through the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, virtual hearings, electronic filing, AI-enabled translation initiatives and research tools. However, the widespread availability of generative AI has fundamentally altered the legal landscape. Lawyers increasingly rely on AI for drafting pleadings and analysing precedents, while AI systems are capable of producing persuasive but inaccurate outputs, including fabricated case law and statutory references. These ‘hallucinations’, together with concerns regarding algorithmic bias, confidentiality of judicial records and unauthorised processing of sensitive data, exposed the absence of a uniform governance framework.
The Draft Regulations respond to this reality by recognising that AI is no longer optional. Instead of resisting technological change, they seek to regulate its responsible adoption. The objective is not merely to improve efficiency but to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice by ensuring that AI operates within constitutional and ethical boundaries.
Judicial Precedents Shaping the Regulatory Approach to Artificial Intelligence
Although India has not yet developed an extensive body of jurisprudence on the use of Artificial Intelligence in the judiciary, the existing judicial discourse reveals a consistent and cautious approach towards its adoption. One of the earliest judicial recognitions of AI came in Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while referring to the Supreme Court’s AI research tool SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), observed that artificial intelligence could significantly enhance judicial efficiency by assisting judges in legal research, analysing precedents, and organising voluminous records. At the same time, the Court unequivocally clarified that AI is merely a decision-support mechanism and cannot replace judicial reasoning or the exercise of judicial discretion. This philosophy has subsequently become the cornerstone of the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, which expressly mandate that AI shall remain subordinate to human judgment and that the determination of questions of law, fact, and justice shall always rest exclusively with judicial officers. The judicial approach became more cautionary in Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, where the Supreme Court took serious exception to a trial court relying upon AI-generated, non-existent judicial precedents while deciding an interlocutory application.
The Court observed that although AI may serve as a useful technological aid in legal research and court administration, it cannot be permitted to influence judicial reasoning unless its outputs are independently verified by the judge. The Court further warned that reliance upon fabricated AI-generated authorities undermines the integrity of the justice delivery system and may, in appropriate circumstances, amount to judicial misconduct rather than a mere error of law. These judicial developments demonstrate that Indian courts have adopted a balanced approach towards artificial intelligence. Rather than rejecting technological innovation, the judiciary has consistently recognised its potential to improve legal research, translation, transcription, accessibility, and administrative efficiency while simultaneously emphasising that adjudication, appreciation of evidence, assessment of witness credibility, sentencing, and the interpretation of constitutional and statutory principles are inherently human functions that cannot be delegated to algorithms. The Draft Regulations, therefore, do not introduce an entirely new philosophy but instead codify the principles that have gradually emerged through judicial thought, namely that artificial intelligence should augment the administration of justice without ever replacing the constitutional responsibility of judges to independently decide disputes.
A Human-Centric Framework
One of the defining strengths of the Draft Regulations is their unequivocal recognition that judicial authority must always remain with human judges. The Regulations provide that AI systems shall function only in an assistive capacity and that the determination of questions of law, fact and justice must remain exclusively within the domain of judicial officers. This principle is reinforced by mandatory human review, accountability and verification requirements.
The Regulations further articulate guiding principles including fairness, non-discrimination, transparency, explainability, proportionality, inclusivity, data integrity and cybersecurity. These principles transform AI governance from a purely technological exercise into a constitutional framework that seeks to harmonise innovation with the rule of law.
Institutional Governance
Unlike many AI policies that merely prescribe ethical principles, the Draft Regulations establish a comprehensive institutional architecture. They propose an Apex Body at the Supreme Court, AI Committees in every High Court, a dedicated AI Secretariat, a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence, specialised technical committees, annual transparency reports, AI registers, incident databases, technical and ethical impact assessments and periodic audits. This institutional model demonstrates that AI governance must be continuous rather than episodic.
The proposed governance framework is particularly significant because it treats AI as a long-term institutional capability requiring sustained oversight, interdisciplinary expertise and periodic review rather than a collection of isolated software tools.
Balancing Innovation and Constitutional Values
The Draft Regulations adopt a progressive approach by creating a presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption. AI may assist in transcription, translation, legal research, document summarisation, case management, accessibility services and administrative functions, subject to human supervision. At the same time, the Regulations categorically prohibit AI from independently determining judicial outcomes, sentencing, risk scoring, behavioural profiling, surveillance of judges and litigants, or replacing judicial discretion.
This balance reflects a mature regulatory philosophy. It acknowledges that AI can significantly improve efficiency while recognising that adjudication involves empathy, constitutional interpretation and human reasoning that cannot be delegated to algorithms.
Limitations and Areas for Improvement
While the Draft Regulations represent a landmark initiative, certain issues merit further consideration. Although the framework repeatedly emphasises explainability and accountability, it does not prescribe objective technical benchmarks for evaluating hallucination rates, acceptable bias thresholds or minimum performance standards before deployment. Greater technical specificity would promote consistency across jurisdictions.
Similarly, although the Regulations require technical and ethical impact assessments, questions relating to independent third-party audits, interoperability standards and procurement criteria deserve further clarification. The requirement that audits be conducted in-house safeguards judicial confidentiality but may reduce opportunities for independent technical validation.
Implementation also presents practical challenges. High Courts differ considerably in technological infrastructure, financial resources and institutional capacity. The success of the framework will therefore depend not merely upon the Regulations themselves but upon sustained investment in digital infrastructure, judicial training, cybersecurity and skilled technical personnel.
Conclusion
In our view, the Draft Regulations represent one of the most progressive judicial technology initiatives undertaken in India. Rather than adopting either excessive caution or unrestricted technological experimentation, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a governance model that embraces innovation while preserving constitutional values. The emphasis on human oversight, transparency and accountability reflects a careful appreciation of the judiciary’s unique constitutional role.
Going forward, the framework should evolve through periodic review to accommodate rapid developments in generative AI. Mandatory certification standards, independent technical evaluation under appropriate safeguards and enhanced training programmes would further strengthen the framework. A dynamic regulatory approach will enable Indian courts to benefit from technological innovation without compromising judicial independence or public trust.
The Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 mark a transformative moment in India’s judicial modernisation. They recognise that AI is likely to become an indispensable component of court administration while firmly reiterating that justice must always remain a human responsibility. By combining innovation with constitutional safeguards, the Draft Regulations lay the foundation for a trustworthy and accountable model of judicial AI governance.
If refined through stakeholder consultation and implemented with adequate institutional support, the proposed framework has the potential to establish India as a global leader in the responsible adoption of AI within judicial systems. More importantly, it reinforces the principle that technology should strengthen the administration of justice without ever replacing the human judgment upon which the legitimacy of the judicial process ultimately depends.
