SYLLABUS

GS-2: Functioning of the Judiciary; Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors and Issues arising out of their Design and Implementation.

Context: Recently, the Supreme Court published the Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary, 2026, proposing a framework for the responsible use of AI in courts while prohibiting its use in judicial decision-making and other high-risk functions.

More on the News

• The draft regulations represent India's first comprehensive framework governing the use of AI within the judiciary and seek to ensure that technological adoption remains consistent with constitutional values and principles of justice.
• The regulations adopt a human-centric approach, emphasizing that AI should function only as an assistive tool and must not replace judicial discretion, reasoning or adjudicatory functions.
• The framework adopts a risk-based approach, distinguishing between permissible low-risk AI applications and prohibited high-risk uses that may affect judicial fairness, independence and due process.
• The framework follows growing global concerns regarding AI hallucinations, algorithmic bias, fabricated citations, lack of explainability and the misuse of predictive technologies in judicial systems.
• The draft regulations are part of the judiciary's broader efforts to establish a structured AI governance framework, complementing ongoing initiatives such as SUVAS, SUPACE and the work of the Supreme Court's AI-related institutional mechanisms.

Key Highlights of the Draft Regulations

• Permitted Uses of AI
  • AI may be used for low-risk administrative and assistive functions such as legal research, translation, transcription, summarisation, document management and case-flow management.
  • AI tools may also support judicial administration by improving efficiency, accessibility and multilingual delivery of court services.
• Prohibited Uses of AI
  • AI cannot be used to determine judicial outcomes, recommend judgments, assess guilt or innocence, evaluate bail eligibility, recommend sentencing or otherwise influence judicial decision-making.
  • The regulations prohibit AI-based witness profiling, behavioural assessment, credibility evaluation, social scoring and predictive analysis of litigants, witnesses or judges.
  • AI-generated outputs cannot be treated as authoritative legal determinations or substitutes for judicial application of the mind.
• Human Oversight and Accountability
  • The regulations mandate that judges and court officials remain fully responsible for all decisions taken with AI assistance.
  • AI systems are intended to be assistive rather than determinative, and all outputs must be subject to independent human verification.
• Institutional Framework for AI Governance
  • The draft regulations propose the establishment of a permanent National Apex Body to formulate standards, oversee implementation and guide AI adoption across the judiciary.
  • They also envisage the creation of a Centre for Research and Excellence in Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) to promote research, testing, capacity building and development of judicial AI tools.
  • The framework recommends the constitution of dedicated AI Committees in every High Court to supervise deployment, compliance, risk assessment and contextual adaptation of AI systems.
• Data Privacy, Security and Inclusivity
  • The regulations emphasise the protection of sensitive judicial data and require safeguards against unauthorised access, misuse and confidentiality breaches arising from AI deployment.
  • They further stress that AI adoption should not widen digital divides or create barriers to access to justice, particularly for technologically disadvantaged litigants.

Significance of the Draft Regulations

• Preserving Judicial Independence and Human Decision-Making: By prohibiting AI from determining judicial outcomes, assessing bail eligibility or recommending sentences, the regulations ensure that adjudication remains a human function grounded in judicial discretion and constitutional accountability.
• Protecting Due Process and Natural Justice: Restrictions on witness profiling, behavioural assessment, social scoring and predictive justice help safeguard fairness, equality before law and the right to a reasoned judicial determination.
• Addressing Risks of AI Bias and Hallucinations: The framework recognises concerns relating to algorithmic bias, fabricated citations, inaccurate outputs and the lack of explainability in AI systems, thereby promoting responsible and trustworthy adoption of AI.
• Promoting Responsible Judicial Innovation: By permitting AI for research, translation, transcription and case management while restricting high-risk applications, the regulations seek to balance technological innovation with ethical, legal and institutional safeguards.

Some Recent Initiatives for AI Adoption in the Indian Judiciary

• SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software): An AI-assisted translation tool developed by the Supreme Court to translate judicial documents and judgments into various Indian languages, thereby improving accessibility to justice.
• SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency): An AI-based tool designed to assist judges in legal research, identification of relevant precedents and analysis of case materials; it functions purely as a support system and does not participate in judicial decision-making.
• Supreme Court AI Governance Initiatives: The Supreme Court has established dedicated committees and expert groups to examine the ethical, safe and responsible integration of AI into judicial administration and court processes.
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project: Initiatives such as e-filing, virtual hearings, digital case records and online judicial services have created the digital infrastructure necessary for the responsible adoption of AI within the justice delivery system.

SOURCES
The Hindu
Indian Express