The Supreme Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL seeking directions for regulation of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and related technologies by the government and municipalities, particularly in areas including welfare schemes, governance, commerce, policing and online content regulation.
The petitioner-in-person sought directions for the government and municipal authorities to formulate appropriate AI pipelines and other tools for applications involving welfare schemes, governance, commerce, policing, policy and online content.
The petition raised concerns over the impact of unregulated and non-transparent deployment of AI and machine-learning systems by State authorities and municipalities, particularly where such systems are used in determining welfare schemes and entitlements, policing and regulation of social-media content.
The petitioner submitted that the absence of comprehensive parliamentary legislation governing AI did not mean that the Court was powerless to protect fundamental rights.
“
“In the absence of comprehensive parliamentary legislation governing AI does not necessarily render this Honourable Court powerless where fundamental rights require protection.”
The Court, however, pointed out that the Supreme Court itself has already put in place comprehensive regulations governing the use of AI within the judicial system. The petitioner then referred the Court specifically to Prayer D, which sought directions for appropriate AI pipelines and tools by the government and municipalities for welfare schemes, governance, commerce, policing, policy and online content.
The Court took note of the broader concerns raised in the petition regarding the effect of AI deployment on civil liberties and observed that the issue of formulating appropriate policies and regulations governing the use of AI or similar tools had already been raised by the petitioner in a comprehensive presentation made on February 10, 2026.
The petition was ultimately disposed of at this stage, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving it to the concerned respondents/authorities to consider the issues and take appropriate measures, if considered necessary.
“
“A practicing lawyer of the Supreme Court, while seeking directions on the use of Artificial Intelligence and machine-learning systems by the State and municipalities, submitted that their unregulated and non-transparent deployment in areas such as welfare schemes and entitlements, policing and social-media content regulation could directly affect civil liberties, democracy, dignity and livelihood. We find that the issues of formulation of appropriate policies and regulations for governing the use of AI or similar tools, from what the petitioner has already stated. There are comprehensive arguments in the petition also regarding both the issues. We therefore dispose of this petition at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving it to the respondents to consider the suggestions for the purpose of taking appropriate measures.”
The Court also directed that a copy of the writ petition as representation be sent to the concerned respondents for their consideration.