"Presumption In Favour Of Responsible AI Adoption": Supreme Court Invites Public Feedback On Draft AI Regulations For Courts
The draft ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026’ propose a framework that bars AI adjudication, sentencing & risk scoring while encouraging courts to actively explore AI tools that improve efficiency and access to justice.
The Supreme Court has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the general public on the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, a regulatory framework designed to govern the deployment and use of Artificial Intelligence across India's judicial system.
The draft regulations have been prepared under the aegis of the Supreme Court's AI Committee and comments have been invited until June 20, 2026.
While prohibiting AI-driven judicial decision-making, bail-risk assessment, behavioural profiling and outcome prediction, the draft regulations propose a nationwide AI governance framework for courts founded on human primacy, data protection, transparency and an ‘Innovation Over Restraint’ philosophy. A central feature of the draft is its unequivocal recognition that AI systems may only function in an assistive capacity and can never replace judicial decision-making.
“16. Presumption in favour of responsible AI adoption.–– (1) Every Court shall actively seek opportunities to deploy AI Systems or AI Tools that demonstrably improve access to justice, reduce delays, or enhance administrative efficiency, and unless proved otherwise, the presumption shall be in favour of responsible adoption of AI in Court processes:
Provided that no AI System or AI Tool used for the purpose of assistance in Court processes, shall replace humans as far as decision-making is concerned, and shall not be deployed for dispute-outcome prediction.
(2) The restriction on, or refusal to permit, the use of any AI System or AI Tool, shall be for reasons to be recorded in writing, and such restriction shall be reasonable and to such extent so as to address the concern identified”, the draft regulations read.
The proposed framework seeks to balance technological innovation with constitutional values by establishing guiding principles such as human primacy, judicial independence, transparency, accountability, data protection, cybersecurity, fairness, and non-discrimination.
“17. Innovation over Restraint— (1) The adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Court processes shall be pursued, in a responsible manner, as a catalyst for impactful innovation in the justice delivery system; and the exploration, development and integration of AI Systems and AI Tools that demonstrably further the goals of judicial efficiency and easy access to justice shall be actively encouraged...”, the draft Regulations reads further.
Under the draft regulations, the ultimate authority to determine questions of law, fact, and justice will remain exclusively with judges. AI-generated outputs are to be treated as advisory in nature and must ordinarily be verified by human officers before being relied upon. The draft further makes it clear that AI hallucinations, black-box systems, or opaque algorithms cannot be used as a shield against accountability.
The problem of AI “hallucinations”, are instances where AI systems generate plausible but factually incorrect, fabricated, or misleading information, including erroneous legal authorities or facts. Pertinently, the framework clarifies that AI-generated errors, black-box systems, or hallucinations cannot be used as a defence to evade accountability, and responsibility for the use of AI-assisted outputs will continue to rest with the concerned judicial officer or user.
The regulations identify several permissible uses of AI, including legal research, precedent retrieval, document summarisation, transcription of court proceedings, translation of judicial records, case management, cause-list preparation, accessibility tools for persons with disabilities, and anonymisation of judgments.
Significantly, the draft imposes strict prohibitions on certain uses of AI. Courts will not be permitted to use AI for adjudication or sentencing without mandatory human oversight. AI-based risk scoring, prediction of recidivism, assessment of bail eligibility, evaluation of witness credibility, behavioural profiling, and dispute-outcome prediction have been expressly prohibited. The regulations also bar the use of undisclosed or unexplainable AI systems in matters affecting personal liberty or legal rights.
To institutionalise AI governance, the draft proposes the creation of a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court level, AI Committees in every High Court, dedicated AI Secretariats, annual audits, AI incident databases, transparency reports, and an AI Content Verification Authority.
The framework reflects the judiciary's attempt to facilitate responsible AI adoption while preserving judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.