Explained: The Supreme Court of India’s Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026

ON JUNE 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India’s Artificial Intelligence Committee released, about thirty-odd pages long, Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 (‘Draft Regulations’). These Draft Regulations mark the first in India’s history where the Supreme Court attempts to set rules governing the operation of artificial intelligence (AI) within Indian Courts.

The Draft Regulations were published for stakeholder and public comment, with a cut-off date of June 20, 2026.

What’s behind these Draft Regulations?

Until recently, there was no unified rulebook specifying which uses of AI in courts require approval, how oversight works, what permitted uses are, or what liability counts look like if errors occur.

The Draft Regulations aim to lay out a framework governing the use of AI in Indian courts. The five key principles that sit at the core of these draft regulations are: human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence. Each principle is evident in the provisions and embedded in the document’s architecture. The main point of the Draft Regulations appears to be that AI might help justice work better, but only when it stays under court control, is subservient, and never serves as a replacement.

The Draft Regulations will apply to the Supreme Court of India, all High Courts, and every court, tribunal, and statutory commission performing adjudicatory functions across the country. They will kick off when the dates are notified separately by the Supreme Court and each High Court.

The vocabulary of the draft regulations

Under Chapter I, the Draft Regulations build a definitional architecture and a careful vocabulary.

An “AI System” or “AI Tool” as defined under Regulation 3(1)(i) of the draft regulations is “any software, platform, application, device, or process” that employs AI to perform tasks in connection with any court process. The scope of this definition is broad by design, but it carefully excludes general-purpose software, such as word processors or speech-to-text processors, unless it specifically embeds or is functionally dependent on AI.

It separately defines “Adjudicatory Function” and “Administrative Function” (Regulation 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) respectively). That distinction is important and carries weight. Adjudicatory functions, such as hearing evidence, framing issues, pronouncing judgments and sentences, will attract a higher level of human oversight, whereas in terms of administrative functions, such as filing, scheduling, notice issuance, and record maintenance, they may allow for somewhat greater automation, though objectively always within sanctioned limits.

There are several definitions that address distinct risks and concepts. For example, Regulation 3(1)(z) defines “Hallucination” as the phenomenon by which an AI system produces outputs that appear plausible but are factually wrong, fabricated, or unsupported, including fabricated citations to cases or statutes. Regulation 3(1)(n) defines “Black Box” as an AI system whose internal reasoning is not transparent and cannot be explained in accessible terms. Regulation 3(1)(zg) defines “Risk Scoring” as the use of AI to assign a score estimating the probability of a person’s future behaviour, such as commission of an offence, recidivism, or failure to appear before a court. Regulation 3(1)(j) defines “Algorithmic Decision-Making” (‘ADM’) as any use of algorithmic output to inform, recommend, or arrive at a decision affecting a person or process.