More Stories

Informist, Thursday, Jun. 4, 2026

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court has come out with draft regulations for the use of artificial intelligence in courts, observing that the technology can only be used in an assistive capacity and shall not compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority by a judge, replace judges and humans in decision-making, or be deployed for dispute-outcome prediction. The use of artificial intelligence in court processes shall at all times remain strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority, according to the norms. The ultimate authority to determine matters of law, fact, and justice shall vest exclusively in judicial officers of the competent jurisdiction, per the norms.

 

According to the norms, no judicial outcome, including judgment, order, or finding of fact or law, shall be reached through algorithmic decision-making alone or solely on the basis of AI-generated information, data, or analysis. No artificial intelligence system shall perform the function of adjudication or sentencing in any matter without mandatory human-in-the-loop and any output of this system in relation to adjudicative or sentencing questions shall be treated as advisory only and shall be subject to independent judicial evaluation. Artificial intelligence systems shall not be used for risk scoring for any purpose in court processes, including the assessment of flight risk, prediction of recidivism, evaluation of bail eligibility, or determination of the credibility of parties or witnesses, it said. Artificial intelligence system shall not be used to predict, profile, or infer the future conduct or behaviour of parties, accused persons, witnesses, or legal representatives in any court process. 

 

According to the norms, all judges, advocates, and court staff who are required to use or interact with AI systems in the course of their duties shall receive regular, structured training on the technical, legal, and ethical dimensions of the technology, as may be relevant to their functions. The AI systems used in court processes shall be designed, trained, and deployed in a manner that promotes fairness and avoids discrimination. No AI system shall be deployed that perpetuates, amplifies, or introduces bias on the grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, gender, disability, language, economic status, or any other ground prohibited under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force, as per the norms. Special care shall also be taken to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable groups, including women, children, persons with disabilities, marginalised and minority communities, and persons from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

Every AI system used in court processes shall meet high standards of transparency and explainability, according to the norms. The functioning, data inputs, and decision logic of any AI system used in a court process shall be capable of being understood and, where appropriate, explained to judicial officers, the parties concerned, and the public. The deployment of artificial intelligence systems that are opaque or incapable of explanation shall be subject to heightened scrutiny and shall be restricted in high-risk applications affecting the personal liberty or lawful rights of a person.

 

The norms also specify the permissible use of artificial intelligence in courts. It can be used in case management, cause list preparation, scheduling of hearings and prioritisation of dockets. It can be used in automated transcription of court proceedings, subject to mandatory review and certification of accuracy by a designated officer. The technology can also be issued in translation of judgments, orders, pleadings, and other legal documents, subject to human verification of accuracy and fidelity to the original.

 

Further, artificial intelligence can be used in legal research, precedent retrieval, verification of citations, and summarisation of documents. The technology may be used in administrative functions, including case filing assistance, defect scrutiny, record management, and judicial resource allocation. It can be used in the form of conversational AI assistants and guided chatbots to assist litigants and other stakeholders in accessing court services and understanding procedural requirements, subject to human supervision of their functioning. The technology can also be used in accessibility services, including text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and Braille translation and visual assistance tools for persons with disabilities or language barriers.

 

In addition, artificial intelligence can be used in document authenticity verification and fraud detection in administrative processes, subject to mandatory human review of all outputs before any action is taken. It can be used in anonymisation of judgments, orders, and court records for publication in the public domain. The technology can also be utilised in analytical tools for judicial administration, court performance assessment, backlog monitoring and management, and auto-generation of prescribed formats, notices, and summons.

 

No personal data of any person shall be used to train, test, or refine any artificial intelligence system without the prior approval of the appropriate authority and, where applicable, in compliance with applicable data protection laws, according to the norms. Further, artificial intelligence cannot be used for surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, advocates, litigants, or any other person within or in connection with court premises or processes, except as may be specifically authorised by applicable law for the time being in force. An output generated by artificial intelligence cannot be submitted to a court as an independent source of evidence without full and transparent disclosure of its AI-generated character.

 

As per the norms, there will be a permanent, full-time apex body at the Supreme Court of India to regulate and promote innovation, integration, governance, supervision, standard-setting, and policy development on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial work. Its function would be to ensure that no AI system is in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or any law for the time being in force and that it is in compliance with operational safeguards. The body will ensure that AI applied in the Indian judicial system is in alignment with the highest global standards. The apex body, along with AI committees at the respective courts, is termed the appropriate authority in the regulations.

 

In a step towards transparency, all court AI systems and tools shall undergo periodic technical, legal, and ethical audits at intervals not exceeding one year from the date of approval or the date of preceding audit, or at shorter intervals as the appropriate authority may direct. The audits shall be conducted in-house and in no circumstances shall the source code, algorithms, datasets, or other architectural information be shared with any third party or private entity for an audit outside the court premises, as per the norms. Sensitive judicial data shall not be transferred to any external system without the express written authorisation of the appropriate authority. Every AI system in use in court processes shall be subject to regular cybersecurity audits at intervals not exceeding one year.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Rajeev Pai

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2026. All rights reserved.