Inside SC’s proposed regulations for AI use in courts: Whats allowed, whats absolutely barred

The Supreme Court (SC) last month released the draft of Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, aimed at developing a governance framework for use of AI in the judiciary, prescribing general principles regarding AI’s use, and establishing an institutional framework for the same. It has sought comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the public by July 15.The Draft Regulations may be seen as an effort to regulate the use of AI in court processes to optimise court administration.Not automatically, and not uniformly. The Draft Regulations will come into force for the SC on any date notified by the Chief Justice of India. For High Courts and courts and tribunals under their jurisdiction, they will come into force separately on the dates notified by that High Court’s Chief Justice. Different provisions can be brought into force on different dates, meaning that AI adoption can be further phased to suit the courts’ requirements and circumstances. What role for AI has the SC carved out? The Draft Regulations propose to require courts to “actively seek opportunities” to deploy AI systems and tools that “demonstrably” improve access to justice, reduce delays, or enhance administrative efficiency. AI use is explicitly permitted for a range of administrative and assistive functions, including case management, transcription, translation, legal research, document summarisation, accessibility, and court administration. All of these will require approval in writing by the Apex Body of the SC, or AI Committee of the high court/tribunal, as the case may be, and supervision and verification of officers nominated by the court. Can AI decide a case? No. The Draft Regulations are categorical that no judicial outcome shall be reached through algorithmic decision-making alone, or solely on the basis of AI-generated information. Human judicial authority is determinative in all adjudicative decisions. Therefore, the use of AI in the decision-making process related to a case, if any, will only be advisory, and subject to independent human (judicial) evaluation. What is off-limits? Several uses are prohibited in “absolute and non-derogable” terms, meaning no authority can later permit them under the Regulations. These include: ‘risk scoring’ to assess flight risk; predicting recidivism; evaluating bail eligibility; determining the credibility of witnesses; using AI to predict, profile, or infer the future conduct or behaviour of parties, accused persons, witnesses, or legal representatives more generally; submitting AI-generated output as independent evidence without full disclosure of its AI-generated character; and using blackbox (unexplainable) AI systems in matters affecting personal liberty.Story continues below this ad Will litigants know if AI was used for their case? Yes, the Draft Regulations propose that if a court uses an AI tool to “materially assist” it in any aspect of case management, document analysis, or judicial administration, it will be required to inform the parties (litigants and their counsel) in a timely and accessible manner. The standard is material assistance; therefore, litigants will not be informed of all instances where AI has been used in their case, but only when AI has provided material assistance to the judge. Who will regulate? The institutional architecture will be led at the highest level by an “Apex Body” at the SC, composed of sitting SC and High Court judges, an official of the Ministry of Electronics and Information (MeitY), and experts in finance and cybersecurity. This body will set out the minimum mandatory standards approving of the use of AI systems and issuing implementation guidelines. It will work through five specialised committees; the SC and each high court will constitute their own AI Committees, backed by an AI Secretariat. A separate research body, the Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI), will evaluate tools and track developments