India's Supreme Court has published the first comprehensive framework governing artificial intelligence use in courts, establishing clear boundaries between where AI can assist judges and where human decision-making must remain absolute. The "Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026," prepared by the Supreme Court AI committee, outlines what AI tools can do, what they cannot do, and how courts across India must oversee their adoption.

What Can AI Actually Do in Indian Courtrooms?

The regulations permit AI to serve as an assistive tool for specific administrative and research functions. Courts can deploy AI for tasks like automatic transcription of proceedings, translation of judgments into multiple languages, legal research assistance, and accessibility services for people with disabilities. The framework specifically mentions several existing AI systems already in use, including LegRAA (Legal Research Analysis Assistant), which analyzes documents and extracts relevant legal references, and SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency), which identifies precedents and clarifies case facts.

One practical example already operational is SUVAS, an AI system that translates Supreme Court judgments into 18 Indian languages, expanding access to justice across the country. Another tool, ASR-SHRUTI, converts judges' speech into text for drafting orders and judgments, reducing administrative burden.

Where Is AI Strictly Forbidden?

The regulations establish absolute prohibitions on AI use in the most consequential judicial decisions. AI is banned from deciding verdicts, evaluating bail conditions, assessing recidivism risk through predictive scoring, predicting human behavior, and conducting surveillance of judges, lawyers, litigants, or other stakeholders unless legally authorized. These restrictions reflect a core principle embedded throughout the framework: human primacy in all judicial decision-making.

• Verdict Decisions: AI cannot determine guilt, innocence, or the outcome of any case, ensuring judges retain full accountability for legal conclusions.
• Risk Assessment: AI is prohibited from predicting whether someone will reoffend or pose a danger, a practice known as recidivism scoring that has faced criticism for bias in other jurisdictions.
• Surveillance: AI cannot monitor judges, lawyers, or litigants unless explicitly authorized by law, protecting privacy and judicial independence.

How Will Courts Implement and Oversee AI Adoption?

The framework establishes a multi-layered governance structure to ensure responsible AI deployment. A permanent national Apex Body will oversee AI adoption and policy development across all courts. Additionally, a research center called CoRE-AI (Center for Research and Excellence in AI) will support evidence-based decision-making, and dedicated AI Committees at every High Court will manage implementation at the regional level.

Before any AI tool can be deployed, courts must conduct pre-deployment impact assessments and perform annual internal audits to verify compliance. Lawyers and litigants must explicitly disclose any use of AI in preparing court documents, creating transparency in the judicial process. The regulations also emphasize digital inclusion, requiring that AI tools be accessible and should not widen the digital divide between those with and without technology access.

Why Does This Matter for the Future of AI Governance?

India's approach represents one of the most detailed regulatory frameworks for AI in the judiciary globally. Rather than banning AI outright or allowing unchecked deployment, the regulations acknowledge that AI can improve efficiency and access to justice while maintaining strict guardrails around decision-making power. The framework is grounded in four guiding principles: human primacy, fairness, transparency, and data privacy under India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

The regulations apply to all judicial, adjudicatory, and administrative functions of the Supreme Court, High Courts, other courts, tribunals, and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory roles across India. This breadth signals that AI governance in the judiciary is not a peripheral concern but a central policy priority as courts modernize.

The timing of these regulations reflects a broader global conversation about AI governance. As countries and institutions grapple with how to harness AI's productivity benefits while preventing misuse, India's judiciary is demonstrating that thoughtful regulation can coexist with innovation. The framework acknowledges that AI is already present in courtrooms and seeks to channel that presence toward legitimate administrative and research functions while erecting firm boundaries around the most sensitive decisions.

The Supreme Court's approach also signals confidence in the potential of AI to improve access to justice, a critical challenge in India's overburdened court system. By automating transcription, translation, and legal research, courts can theoretically reduce delays and improve efficiency, freeing judges to focus on the interpretive and moral dimensions of their work that only humans can perform.

" }