Artificial Intelligence has moved from being a technological novelty to becoming an integral part of modern legal practice. Today, it can assist in drafting pleadings, summarising thousands of pages of records, conducting legal research, and even transcribing proceedings in real time.

That reality leaves the legal profession with a more difficult question than whether AI should be used. The real question is this: how do we harness AI’s immense potential without compromising the integrity of the justice delivery system?

The timing of this debate could not be more appropriate. In recent months, courts across jurisdictions have witnessed an increasing number of instances where lawyers have relied upon AI-generated material containing incorrect authorities, inaccurate citations and, in some cases, entirely fictitious judgments. The Supreme Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd[3] itself recently expressed concern over the misuse of AI-generated case law in court filings, making it abundantly clear that the absence of a regulatory framework was no longer a theoretical concern but a practical necessity.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s Draft Regulations on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts (“Draft Regulations”) represent a timely and progressive response. The Draft Regulations have a remarkably wide application. It is proposed to govern the use, deployment and integration of AI in every judicial, adjudicatory and administrative function of the Courts across India.

The Draft Regulations are founded upon ten overarching principles intended to govern every stage of AI adoption within the judiciary:

● Accountability: every AI-assisted outcome must remain attributable to an identifiable human authority.

● Auditability and Continuous Oversight: AI systems must remain capable of regular review, monitoring and independent audit.

● Data Protection and Privacy: judicial data must be processed and protected in accordance with applicable privacy safeguards.

● Purpose Limitation: AI may only be deployed for authorised judicial and administrative purposes.

● Proportionality: the deployment of AI must remain proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

● Inclusivity and Accessibility: AI should improve access to justice, particularly for persons with disabilities and those facing language barriers.

● Data Integrity: the accuracy, authenticity and reliability of judicial data must be preserved.

● Cyber Security: AI systems must comply with robust cybersecurity standards.

● Presumption in Favour of Responsible AI Adoption: technological innovation should be encouraged where appropriate safeguards exist.

● Innovation with Responsibility: technological advancement should complement, and never compromise, constitutional values and judicial independence.

The objective of the Draft Regulations is therefore not to prohibit AI, but to ensure that its adoption within the judicial system remains transparent, accountable and consistent with the administration of justice. Subject to appropriate safeguards and human supervision, Draft Regulation 19 permits the use of AI for several functions such as case management, defect identification, scheduling and cause list preparation, document summarisation, automated transcription and translation, summons and administrative formats, etc.

At the same time, the Draft Regulations draw equally clear boundaries. Draft Regulation 20 prohibits AI from determining judicial outcomes, performing adjudicatory or sentencing functions, evaluating bail eligibility, assessing the credibility of parties or witnesses, profiling litigants or predicting future behaviour.

One of the most significant features of the Draft Regulations is the institutional architecture proposed to govern AI adoption. Draft Regulation 21 envisages the establishment of a permanent Apex Body to regulate, standardise and supervise the use of AI throughout the Indian judicial system. The proposed body comprises representatives from the judiciary, technical experts, government departments, academia, cybersecurity specialists and members of the Bar. Its functions extend well beyond policy formulation and include standard-setting, approval of AI systems, monitoring, auditing, governance and the continuous evaluation of emerging technologies.

The Draft Regulations go a step further by proposing specialised committees under the Apex Body, including a Judicial Committee, Technical Committee, Committee on Infrastructure and Finance, Case and Data Management Committee and Cyber Security Committee. The creation of dedicated committees for each facet of AI governance demonstrates the level of institutional thought that has gone into the proposed framework.

Equally noteworthy is the manner in which the Draft Regulations seek to regulate private sector participation. Recognising that many AI solutions will inevitably be developed by private technology providers, the Draft Regulations mandate that no private entity may participate in AI deployment within court processes without prior approval of the Appropriate Authority and every proposal must undergo comprehensive scrutiny before approval is granted.

Importantly, the Draft also mandates that every AI system deployed within court processes must comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and all other applicable laws governing personal data and judicial information. The framework therefore ensures that technological innovation remains firmly anchored within India’s existing statutory regime.

These principles are closely aligned with emerging international standards. In Ayinde v Haringey London Borough Council and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank[4], the High Court of Justice in England and Wales reiterated that while generative AI may be a valuable professional tool, it cannot replace independent legal research, professional judgment or ethical responsibility. Lawyers remain personally accountable for every authority cited and every submission placed before the Court, irrespective of whether AI assisted in its preparation.

The legal profession has always evolved alongside technology and the Supreme Court has consistently positioned itself as a technologically progressive institution, whether through the e-Courts Mission, electronic filing, virtual hearings, live-streaming of Constitution Bench proceedings or AI-assisted transcription. Artificial Intelligence is simply the next chapter in that evolution. Used responsibly, it has the potential to reduce administrative burdens, improve access to legal information, facilitate transcription and translation, enhance efficiency and ultimately allow lawyers and judges to devote greater attention to what technology cannot replicate: legal reasoning, judicial discretion, experience and human judgment. It is this balance that the Supreme Court’s Draft Regulations deserve credit for achieving.

[1] Pranay Chitale, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India

[2] Smiti Verma, Advocate.

[3] 2026 INSC 668

[4] [2025] EWHC 1383