Supreme Court Proposes AI Rules for Courts, Bars Algorithm-Only Judicial Decisions
The proposed framework permits AI for legal research, translation and case management, while barring AI-driven judicial decisions, risk scoring and undisclosed AI systems.
News
- Supreme Court Proposes AI Rules for Courts, Bars Algorithm-Only Judicial Decisions
- SAP Labs India Selects 16 Startups for 2026 Startup Studio Cohort
- Nearly Half of Workers Now Spend More Time Managing AI Than Doing Tasks, Study Finds
- Microsoft Shows AI Wearable Badge, Desktop Device Concepts
- Anthropic Expands AI Cybersecurity Program to 150 More Organizations
- Alphabet Plans $80 Billion Equity Raise to Fund AI Infrastructure
The Supreme Court of India has released draft regulations on the use of artificial intelligence in courts, proposing guardrails that allow AI to assist judicial and administrative work but bar algorithm-only decisions.
The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 were prepared under the Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence Committee. The court has invited comments from stakeholders and the public by 20 June.
The proposed rules are based on the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence, according to the notice issued on 3 June.
They would apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions across India.
Human Oversight Mandatory
The draft says AI systems must remain “strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority” and function only in an assistive capacity. It says the final authority to decide questions of law, fact and justice must rest exclusively with judicial officers.
Under the framework, AI may be used for case management, defect identification, cause-list preparation, hearing schedules, docket prioritization, transcription, translation, legal research, precedent retrieval, citation verification and document summarization, subject to approval and human review where required.
The rules also permit AI for administrative work such as filing assistance, record management, judicial resource allocation, chatbots for litigants, accessibility tools, anonymization of judgments, fraud detection and backlog monitoring.
Restrictions on AI Use
The draft draws a clear line at judicial decision-making. It says no judgment, order or finding of fact or law can be reached through algorithmic decision-making alone or solely on the basis of AI-generated information, data or analysis.
It also bars AI systems from risk scoring in court processes, including assessment of flight risk, prediction of recidivism, evaluation of bail eligibility, or determination of the credibility of parties or witnesses.
Courts would also be prohibited from using AI to predict, profile or infer the future conduct of parties, accused persons, witnesses or legal representatives. Undisclosed, opaque or unexplainable AI systems would be barred in any court process that may affect lawful rights or personal liberty.
The draft also prohibits AI-based surveillance or continuous monitoring of judges, advocates, litigants or others connected with court premises or court processes, unless specifically authorized by law. AI-generated output cannot be submitted as independent evidence without full disclosure.
The proposed framework would create a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court to regulate AI use in the judiciary, approve AI systems, set standards and coordinate with High Court AI Committees. The body would include Supreme Court and High Court judges, technology and cybersecurity experts, finance experts, legal professionals and government representatives.
Disclosure Requirements
Before deployment, AI systems would have to undergo technical and ethical impact assessments covering their purpose, architecture, training data, bias, error, hallucination risks, cybersecurity, data protection, explainability and human oversight.
Each court would be required to maintain an AI Register documenting approved systems, their permitted uses, vendors, impact assessments, audit records and AI-related incidents. AI systems would also face periodic technical, legal and ethical audits at least once a year.
The draft also sets conditions for private vendors. Any private entity working on court AI systems would need prior written approval, and contracts would have to cover data ownership, audit rights, incident reporting, liability, source and model transparency, and restrictions on using court data to retrain or modify AI models.
AI systems used in court processes would have to comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and other applicable laws. Sensitive judicial data cannot be transferred to external systems without written authorization, and AI tools processing such data may require on-premise or sovereign cloud deployment.
The Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions by email to the Member Secretary of its AI Committee by 20 June.
