Supreme Court Draft AI Regulations for Courts 2026: What Legal Professionals Must Know

Kaustav Chowdhury
5 days ago
4 min read

On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India released its Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, marking a landmark step in regulating how AI tools interact with the Indian judicial system. The draft, published for public consultation with a deadline of June 20, 2026, establishes a comprehensive framework built on five core principles: human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence. For lawyers, litigants, and legal technology companies, these regulations signal a clear direction: AI may assist the courts, but it shall never adjudicate.

The Five Core Principles

The draft regulations rest on five foundational principles that govern every aspect of AI deployment in courts across India.

Human Primacy and Judicial Independence: Regulation 4 establishes that judges retain full and exclusive authority over every decision involving law, fact, and justice. AI systems function strictly as assistive tools, and no algorithmic output may substitute for judicial reasoning.

Transparency: Any use of AI in court filings, legal research, or document preparation must be disclosed. Lawyers submitting AI-assisted pleadings are required to make an express declaration at the time of filing.

Accountability: The professional or institution deploying an AI system remains fully responsible for its outputs. AI-generated errors in legal submissions will not serve as a defence.

Data Protection: AI systems handling judicial data must comply with stringent data protection standards, ensuring that sensitive case information is not exposed, misused, or retained beyond necessity. This principle aligns with India's broader Digital Personal Data Protection framework.

Judicial Independence: AI tools must not undermine the autonomy of judicial officers. No AI-based surveillance or continuous monitoring of judges, advocates, or litigants connected with court proceedings is permitted.

Three Structural Pillars of the Framework

Beyond the guiding principles, the draft regulations establish three structural pillars that define how AI will operate within Indian courts.

First, AI may assist but never adjudicate. This draws a firm boundary between permissible uses (legal research, citation verification, drafting assistance, document summarisation, translation, transcription, and case management) and prohibited uses (any form of judicial decision-making).

Second, AI use in filings must be disclosed. Lawyers using AI to draft pleadings, research case law, or prepare submissions must inform the court. This mandatory disclosure requirement ensures judicial officers can assess the reliability of AI-assisted work products.

Third, a permanent Apex Body called CoRE-AI (Centre of Research and Excellence on AI) will be established at the Supreme Court level. Chapter IV of the draft creates a layered institutional architecture: the Apex Body at the Supreme Court, AI Committees in each High Court, and AI Secretariats at individual courts. CoRE-AI will serve as the central research and oversight body, responsible for developing standards, conducting audits, and guiding the responsible adoption of AI across the judiciary.

What Is Expressly Prohibited

The draft regulations draw a clear line on several specific AI applications that are banned from court use:

AI-driven judicial decision-making is entirely prohibited. No AI system may determine the outcome of any case, whether in whole or in part. Risk scoring for any purpose in court processes is barred, including assessment of flight risk, prediction of recidivism, evaluation of bail eligibility, or determination of the credibility of parties or witnesses. Behavioural profiling, where AI systems predict the future conduct of litigants, witnesses, or accused persons, is also forbidden. Additionally, AI-based surveillance or continuous monitoring of judges, advocates, or litigants is expressly prohibited. The use of undisclosed or unexplainable AI systems in matters affecting personal liberty or legal rights is likewise not permitted.

These prohibitions are particularly significant for the growing AI legal technology sector in India, as companies developing predictive analytics or risk-assessment tools for litigation will need to ensure their products do not cross into prohibited territory.

What Is Permitted

The regulations take a permissive approach toward administrative and research applications. Permitted uses include legal research and citation checks, drafting assistance for judgments and orders, document summarisation for case preparation, translation and transcription services, case management and scheduling functions, and administrative tasks such as record-keeping and workflow optimisation. However, all permitted uses carry a disclosure obligation. The AI-assisted character of documents must be declared at the time of submission to the court.

Scope of Application

The draft regulations apply broadly to the Supreme Court of India, all High Courts, and every court, tribunal, and statutory commission performing adjudicatory functions across the country. This expansive scope means that tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal, consumer forums, and regulatory bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers will all fall within the framework. The initiative was spearheaded under the tenure of Chief Justice Surya Kant, reflecting the judiciary's proactive approach to governing technology within its own domain.

Implications for Legal Practice

For practising lawyers, the most immediate impact will be the disclosure requirement. Advocates already using AI tools for research, drafting, or case analysis will need to develop internal protocols for declaring AI use in their filings. Law firms and legal departments should begin auditing their AI tool usage now, as these regulations are expected to be finalised soon after the consultation period.

The broader regulatory trend is also worth noting. The RBI has separately introduced model risk management guidance requiring AI kill switches for banks, and the deepfake laws under the IT Rules continue to evolve. Together, these developments indicate that India is building a sector-specific approach to AI governance rather than relying on a single omnibus law.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court's Draft AI Regulations for Courts 2026, released on June 3, 2026, establish five core principles: human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence.

AI-driven judicial decision-making, bail-risk assessment, behavioural profiling, and outcome prediction are all expressly prohibited.

Permitted uses include legal research, drafting, translation, transcription, and case management, but all must be disclosed to the court.

A permanent Apex Body, CoRE-AI (Centre of Research and Excellence on AI), will be established at the Supreme Court to oversee AI governance across all courts.

The regulations apply to the Supreme Court, all High Courts, and every tribunal and statutory commission performing adjudicatory functions.

Legal professionals should begin auditing their AI tool usage and developing disclosure protocols in preparation for the final regulations.