AI in Indian Courts: What the Supreme Court's Draft Regulations 2026 Mean for Litigants and Advocates

AI in Indian Courts: What the Supreme Court's Draft Regulations 2026 Mean for Litigants and Advocates

The Supreme Court of India, through its Artificial Intelligence Committee, has published a preliminary draft titled Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, inviting comments from stakeholders and the public until 20 June 2026. For litigants, advocates, and anyone navigating the Delhi district courts or the Delhi High Court, this is a significant development worth understanding.

Why these regulations matter

For the first time, India is moving toward a structured framework governing how AI tools may be used within the judicial system. The draft rests on five core principles: human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence. In plain terms, AI is permitted to assist the courts — but never to decide. The draft makes clear that the ultimate authority over questions of law, fact, and justice remains exclusively with human judges.

What AI will be allowed to do

The draft permits AI for clearly defined, assistive purposes: case management and cause-list preparation, transcription of proceedings (subject to human certification), translation of judgments and pleadings, legal research and citation verification, anonymisation of judgments for publication, and accessibility tools for persons with disabilities. Each of these requires prior written approval and human supervision.

What is strictly prohibited

Equally important is what AI cannot do. The draft lists absolute, non-derogable prohibitions. No judicial outcome may be reached through algorithmic decision-making alone. AI cannot be used for "risk scoring" — that is, predicting flight risk, recidivism, bail eligibility, or the credibility of witnesses. AI cannot profile or predict the future conduct of accused persons or litigants. And AI cannot be used for surveillance of judges, advocates, or litigants. These prohibitions cannot be relaxed by any authority.

A point of direct relevance to practising advocates

The draft addresses a concern that has already troubled courts worldwide: fabricated citations. It defines "hallucination" as AI output that appears plausible but is factually incorrect or fabricated — including invented case precedents and misstated statutory provisions. Under the draft, any advocate using an AI tool to prepare pleadings or evidence must disclose that AI-assisted character to the court through a prescribed declaration. Critically, if a submission is found to be false or fabricated because of its AI-generated origin, the person submitting it bears full responsibility and cannot hide behind the AI as a defence.

For litigants, this is reassuring. It means the courts are building safeguards to ensure that the documents and arguments placed before a judge are verified and accountable. For advocates, it reinforces a discipline that careful practitioners already follow: every citation must be independently verified before it reaches the court.

The institutional structure

The draft establishes a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court, supported by specialised committees on technical, judicial, infrastructure, data management, and cyber security matters. Each High Court will constitute its own AI Committee with a dedicated AI Secretariat. AI systems will be entered in a public AI Register, subjected to annual audits conducted in-house, and reviewed against an Ethical Impact Assessment before deployment.

What this means going forward

The framework signals a cautious, principle-led approach: innovation is encouraged, but never at the cost of due process, fair trial, or judicial independence. The public consultation window closing on 20 June 2026 is an opportunity for the legal community to shape the final form of these regulations.

At Mishra & Associates, we continue to monitor regulatory developments affecting litigation practice across the Tis Hazari courts, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court. If you have questions about how procedural and evidentiary developments may affect your matter, our team is available to assist.