The Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in courts, 2026, proposed by the Supreme Court of India, are deemed a remarkable judicial development aiming at regulating the use of AI within the courtrooms.
Though long overdue, the Framework positions itself to lay a foundation for an institutional mechanism that consists of an Apex Body, AI Committees, and an AI Secretariat that will oversee the implementation of AI, ensuring judicial independence, transparency, and accountability.
The proposed framework comes at a significant juncture for the Indian judiciary.
Towards the culmination of 2025, the Supreme Court of India had a pendency of over 92,318 cases, and the pendency in respect of High Courts and District & Subordinate Courts, as on 31st December 2025, stands at 63,70,904 and 4,43,45,599 respectively.
In this context, AI is increasingly viewed as an effective instrument to enhance the efficiency of the judiciary by reducing the administrative burden and improving access to justice.
The focus of these guidelines is a delicate balance between efficiency and an effort to align advancements in technology with the core constitutional values of the country.
Although the proposed framework is considered a promising model for governance, its success will depend on how well it addresses critical issues that hinder its implementation.
The Institutional Vision of the Framework
The draft guidelines emphasise institutions in delivering the prescribed principles. Multiple AI governance initiatives around the world have primarily adopted broad ethical principles such as fairness, accountability, and transparency as the pillars of their framework.
Likewise, the Supreme Court of India too has mirrored these views and proposed that such principles require an institutional mechanism for implementation and oversight.
Intrinsically, the inception of an Apex Body would provide high-level strategic leadership and policy development, while the specialised AI Committees would undertake technical analysis, risk assessment, and ethical review of AI systems.
Similarly, an AI Secretariat would assist in coordination, implementation, and monitoring. Together, these institutions intend to form a governance ecosystem that would adequately address the evolving nature of AI technologies.
The institutional approach is especially significant owing to the constantly evolving nature of AI, and static regulatory frameworks may become obsolete before new capabilities are developed, leading to unforeseen risks. The highlight is the explicit rejection of the idea of fully automated judicial decisions.
Rather, it anticipates using AI as an assistive tool to facilitate judicial administration, research, translation, and case management.
This creates a distinction between the roles performed by human judges and those performed with assistance by AI, while still affirming that the source of legitimacy for judges’ decisions is the judgment of humans.
The Case for Judicial AI: Efficiency and Access to Justice
There is a strong rationale for the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the Justice System. Legal practitioners spend a great deal of time undertaking repetitive administrative activities, such as legal research, document review, transcription, scheduling, and record management.
The AI-enabled system is capable of saving many hours of those processes so that judges and court personnel can concentrate on substantive legal matters.
India’s present judicial system is particularly well suited to benefit from the introduction of AI in the judicial system because the number of judges in India compared to its population is much lower than global benchmarks.
Owing to this, there is a huge backlog of cases being processed in the Indian judicial system. Consequently, a marginal increase in efficiency would yield dramatic results in the judicial administration of India.
The Indian judiciary has already been engaged in the adoption of technology in its court systems through some of the initiatives listed below:
These efforts collectively indicate the ability of AI to augment the courts without infringing on a judge’s judicial discretion.
AI also provides new paths to improve access to justice through the use of technology, including automated translations, which can help mitigate the language barrier in a country with more than one national language.
Intelligent document management systems can simplify the court process and provide a means to track cases. Predictive analytics can assist the administrators in identifying the causes of bottlenecks and in properly distributing available resources.
Governance Challenges and Constitutional Risks
Although the framework possesses several advantages, there are major obstacles to overcome that would otherwise compromise its usefulness.
Bias in AI algorithms
The algorithm through which AI learns is primarily through historical data, and if that data contains evidence of social inequality, then it’s highly likely that these algorithms will perpetuate that inequality when they generate results.
Studies throughout the world have shown that algorithmic systems often negatively impact marginalised communities.
In India, given the nation’s well-documented inequalities based on caste, economic class, gender, language, and location, the possibility of repeating existing inequalities through the use of algorithms is extremely high. As such, there will need to be appropriate representative data sets and ongoing auditing to mitigate this risk.
Fabricated Jurisprudence
The propensity of AI to create false citations and fabricated precedents to satisfy our legal arguments, pushing us into delusion, is well known. If strong verification is not in place, judges and legal practitioners will be influenced by hallucinated citations, which could damage judicial reasoning and lead to a loss of trust in the justice system.
A decision made in an adjudicative context has an impact on basic rights, liberties, or the ability to rely on the law; strong protections and ongoing scrutiny are necessary when utilising AI.
“With a surfeit of serious bloopers in the legal arena, not limited to throwing up non-existent judgments, AI has justifiably been ‘on trial.’ Against the backdrop of legitimate scepticism, the Supreme Court’s draft regulations, 2026, I am sanguine, will ensure that AI is not shown the door but allowed a grilled window into a profession that demands credibility and accuracy. AI can supplement our work, not supplant it.”
Mr Sanjay Pinto, Advocate, Legal Columnist & Author
Transparency
Several AI models use complex computing processes, which are difficult for individuals to comprehend . As a result, the “black box” problem contradicts the judiciary’s goals of providing reasoned and explainable decisions to the public.
Individuals will only have trust in the court system if they can comprehend the basis of a decision, and therefore, AI systems used in judicial processes must be reviewed and explained as well.
Data protection
Courts deal with very sensitive types of information, including personally identifiable information (PII), financial, medical, and commercial information. The use of AI on a large scale requires that these types of data be readily available to AI systems, increasing the risk of cyber-attacks and violating an individual’s privacy.
The court system will have to establish strict access controls and data protection standards to ensure that individuals’ rights are protected.
“Current AI systems create an illusion of personalisation but largely generate responses based on analysed patterns and predictions. As a result, they may struggle to offer diverse perspectives & independent reasoning, making their outputs inherently shaped by the limitations of the data and assumptions on which they are trained.”
Ishika Ajay Somani, Legal Practitioner
Determination of Liability
Concerns exist related to liability among software developers, technology providers, and those outside of either category.
To avoid fragmented accountability, there must be clear audit trails and effective mechanisms in place. Additionally, interdisciplinary skills will be required for the effective governance of AI in the judicial system, and investments will be needed in training the workforce to acquire these skills.
Furthermore, any dependence on AI should not replace the necessary reform required in the judicial system in regard to addressing structural issues, and the use of AI should be used to assist with comprehensive judicial reforms rather than replace judicial reforms.
Can the guidelines become a Global Model?
The unique nature of the Supreme Court of India’s proposed AI governance model is that it embodies ethics-based principles by establishing institutions to oversee their application, which demarcates it from the other states, which are primarily concerned with setting regulatory standards through legislation.
Therefore, this approach to governance may provide courts in other parts of the world with possible solutions, particularly in jurisdictions with many cases pending and limited resources available for resolving them.
Ultimately, if the objectives of the governance framework are fully realised, India could play a significant role in contributing to the establishment of international norms regarding AI in the judicial process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India’s proposed AI Governance Framework marks an important milestone towards progress on responsible innovation in the judiciary.
Its emphasis on institutional oversight sets it apart from the models of other countries for regulating AI and demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of the governance issues associated with new technologies.
However, the issues battling the implementation can be addressed with strong safeguards, ongoing monitoring, and appropriate human oversight. Once resolved, this framework may provide an important model for regulating the use of AI by judiciaries worldwide.
This article is written by Rohaan Thyagaraju who is currently a part of the Civis’ Policy Leaders Internship Program (PLIP). Policy Leaders Internship Program is a 12-week paid internship where fellows work on researching policy issues, simplifying active draft laws, and exploring outreach strategies to reach impacted stakeholders.
Click here to access the website!
