By Shivanand Pandit
Digital transformation in the Indian judiciary has advanced considerably over the past few years. The courts have gradually built a system that incorporates Artificial Intelligence (AI) into various judicial processes. One of the earliest applications of AI in the Supreme Court of India was the automatic transcription of court proceedings, which helps improve transparency and maintain accurate records of oral arguments. AI-based tools have also been developed to translate Supreme Court judgments into different Indian languages and assist judges in legal research.
Continuing its efforts to promote responsible use of AI in the justice system, the Supreme Court of India released draft regulations on June 3, 2026, to govern the use of AI in courts. This proposal has been introduced at a time when the Indian judicial system is facing a huge pendency of over 55 million cases. Such delays in resolving disputes create significant social and economic challenges. As a result, there is an increasing need to explore technological solutions that can help improve efficiency and speed up the delivery of justice.
The proposed rules allow lawyers and litigants to use AI tools in legal work, provided such usage is disclosed. At the same time, the draft regulations clearly state that decisions relating to law, facts, and justice will remain solely in the hands of judges. Public comments on the draft regulations are invited until 20 June 2026. The proposed regulations will apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals, and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions across India. Their objective is to encourage innovation and efficiency while safeguarding judicial independence, human supervision, transparency, accountability, privacy, and fairness.
Recognising the risks associated with AI, the draft framework emphasises the need for strong cybersecurity measures, protection of personal data, and proper governance of information. It promotes the responsible adoption of AI in court processes to improve access to justice, reduce delays, and enhance administrative efficiency. All AI systems used within the judiciary must comply with the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Oversight of these AI systems will be carried out by the designated authorities, namely the Apex Body of the Supreme Court of India and the AI Committees established in the respective High Courts, tribunals, and commissions.
Key aspects of the draft AI regulations
Under the proposed AI framework, courts in India will be permitted to use Artificial Intelligence for a variety of support functions. These include legal research, checking the accuracy of case citations, assisting in drafting legal documents, translating judgments and court records, transcribing oral proceedings, managing case files, scheduling hearings, maintaining records, and improving overall court administration. AI-based tools may also be used to make court services more accessible and help litigants better understand and navigate judicial procedures.
However, the draft regulations clearly define the limits of AI usage in the justice system. AI systems will not be allowed to make judicial decisions or perform functions that require human judgment. They cannot decide the outcome of cases, grant or deny bail, determine punishments, assess the credibility of witnesses, predict a person’s future behaviour, or influence a judge’s decision-making process. The regulations also prohibit the use of non-transparent or “black-box” AI systems in matters involving fundamental rights and personal liberty. This includes AI-based risk assessment tools that attempt to predict whether a person may commit another offence or evade legal proceedings.
One of the most important aspects of the proposed framework is the requirement for transparency. Whenever a lawyer, litigant, or legal representative uses AI while preparing pleadings, legal documents, written submissions, or evidence, they must disclose this fact to the court at the time of filing. The court may also ask for additional information regarding the AI tool that was used, the nature and extent of its assistance, and the steps taken to verify the accuracy and reliability of the AI-generated content. The draft regulations make it clear that the responsibility for all documents submitted to the court remains with the person filing them. If any AI-generated content is found to be incorrect, misleading, fabricated, or false, the litigant or lawyer who submitted it will be held accountable. They cannot avoid responsibility by claiming that the error was caused by the AI system.
The framework is based on the principle of “human primacy,” which means that AI is intended only to support human decision-making and cannot replace it. Judges and court officials must independently evaluate facts, apply legal principles, and deliver justice. The final authority for judicial decisions will always remain with human decision-makers. Similarly, judges and court officials cannot use mistakes, inaccuracies, or hallucinations generated by AI systems as an excuse for erroneous decisions. Recognising that AI systems can sometimes generate inaccurate or entirely fabricated information, the draft regulations require that all AI-generated outputs be carefully checked and verified before being used in any judicial or administrative process.
To ensure proper implementation and oversight, the proposal recommends the creation of a permanent Apex AI Body at the Supreme Court level. This body would be supported by AI Committees and dedicated administrative units in various courts. The framework also calls for regular annual audits of AI systems, maintenance of registers recording AI usage, creation of databases for reporting AI-related incidents, implementation of strong cybersecurity measures, strict compliance with data protection laws, and continuous training programmes for judges, lawyers, and court staff. Overall, the draft regulations adopt a positive but cautious approach towards AI. They encourage courts to explore and use responsible AI technologies that can improve access to justice, reduce case delays, enhance efficiency, and strengthen the overall functioning of the judicial system, while ensuring that transparency, accountability, fairness, and human oversight remain central to the administration of justice.
Role of the Technology Sector in Judicial AI Adoption
The draft AI Regulations open up new opportunities for technology companies and AI service providers to work closely with the Indian judiciary. The proposed framework acknowledges that private technology firms, software vendors, and third-party service providers can play an important role in supporting the adoption and management of AI systems within courts.
As the judiciary moves towards the responsible use of AI, there will be a growing need for expertise not only in developing and implementing AI solutions but also in educating and supporting judicial stakeholders. Technology companies can contribute in several ways, including designing AI-powered tools for court operations, conducting AI awareness and literacy programmes, developing specialised training modules for judges, lawyers, and court staff, and undertaking capacity-building initiatives to enhance the effective use of technology in the justice delivery system. They can also assist courts in establishing frameworks for responsible AI governance, ensuring that AI systems are used ethically, transparently, and in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
The proposed framework is likely to create significant opportunities for a wide range of stakeholders, including AI developers, technology service providers, cybersecurity professionals, cloud service providers, digital infrastructure companies, and emerging legal-technology enterprises. These stakeholders can contribute their technical expertise and practical experience to help shape the future of AI adoption in the judicial sector. Their participation in the consultation process can help ensure that the final regulatory framework is practical, technologically feasible, secure, and innovation-friendly. It can also assist policymakers in addressing critical issues such as data security, privacy protection, system reliability, accountability, and the responsible deployment of AI solutions. By involving industry experts and technology providers, the judiciary can develop a balanced framework that encourages innovation while safeguarding the integrity, independence, and fairness of the justice delivery system.
Implementation Challenges and the Way Forward
The Indian judiciary has already begun using AI to improve the efficiency of court operations. The Supreme Court has introduced AI-based tools such as Supace (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), which assists judges in conducting legal research by quickly identifying relevant judgments and legal materials. Another important initiative is Suvas (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), which helps translate judicial documents and court orders into at least eighteen Indian languages, thereby making legal information more accessible to people across the country.
India is not alone in exploring the use of AI in the justice system. Several countries have already adopted similar technologies to improve judicial administration and access to justice. For example, Singapore uses generative AI tools to assist individuals who appear before tribunals without legal representation. These tools help litigants understand their legal rights, court procedures, and the steps involved in resolving disputes. Estonia has implemented AI-assisted systems for tasks such as transcription of court proceedings, analysis of legal documents, and anonymisation of sensitive information. China has taken AI adoption even further through its “smart courts” initiative, where machine learning technologies are used to support legal research, prepare draft documents, and identify potential errors in judgments and court orders. However, despite these advancements, many countries continue to express concerns regarding the transparency of AI systems, the possibility of algorithmic bias, and the risk of unfair outcomes in judicial processes.
While the proposed AI framework for Indian courts is ambitious and forward-looking, its success will depend largely on how effectively it is implemented. The introduction of AI into the judicial system cannot be achieved merely by deploying technology. Judges, registry officials, lawyers, and court staff, particularly those working in district and lower courts, will require extensive training to understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI tools. Without adequate knowledge and technical understanding, it would be difficult for judicial stakeholders to properly supervise AI systems and ensure their responsible use.
Effective oversight of AI requires a certain level of digital and technological literacy among those who use and monitor these tools. Training programmes, awareness initiatives, and continuous capacity-building efforts will therefore be essential to ensure that AI is used appropriately and ethically within the justice delivery system.
Another critical requirement is the protection of judicial data. Courts handle highly sensitive personal, financial, and legal information. Therefore, strong cybersecurity measures, robust data protection mechanisms, and secure technology infrastructure will be necessary to safeguard confidential records and maintain public trust in the judicial system.
If implemented carefully and responsibly, AI has the potential to significantly improve the functioning of courts. It can help reduce delays by speeding up routine tasks, improving record management, enhancing legal research, increasing administrative efficiency, and making court services more accessible to citizens. At the same time, the framework rightly emphasises that AI should remain a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human decision-making. The ultimate responsibility for interpreting the law, evaluating evidence, and delivering justice must continue to rest with judges, ensuring that human judgment remains at the heart of the judicial process.
