Supreme Court releases Draft ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 | Here’s What That Means

How would you feel if your lawyer used a case that doesn’t exist in reality and is just AI-generated?

Not great, right?

Thereby, responding to a parliamentary query on artificial intelligence in the legal profession, the BCI said lawyers remain responsible for every pleading and submission filed before a court regardless of whether AI tools were used in their preparation.

“If a false case, fake quote, or misleading proposition is filed, the advocate cannot avoid accountability by saying that a machine produced it. The machine neither signs the pleading nor owes duties to the court. The advocate does,” it said.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has come up with draft ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026,' which have the aim to govern the use of AI in courts.

Core Principles:

1. Human-in-the-Loop: Ultimately, the decision-making needs to be done by the lawyers. Its use shall be limited to the nature of the task. Tasks that involve a high risk should have heightened safeguards. 

2. Transparency Mandate: The AI tools used should not be biased and possess the highest standards of transparency and accountability. If any AI-generated information is used in court, then it shall be verified, and they shall undergo audits as per the discretion of the Appropriate Authority. Furthermore, no AI-generated output shall be submitted to a court as an independent source of evidence without a full and transparent disclosure.

3. Prohibited Use of AI: The use of AI is strictly prohibited for their training on personal data without prior approval of the appropriate authority. No judicial outcome or risk scoring (such as  evaluation of bail eligibility or determination of the credibility of parties or witnesses)  is to be reached on the basis of AI-generated information or algorithmic decision-making.

The Institutional Setup:

1. AI Committee: If there is any violation regarding the prohibited uses of AI as set out in Regulation 20, then it shall be placed before the AI Committee (consisting of  Committee of judges constituted in the Supreme Court or in each High Court). After due inquiry, it can direct remedial measures such as suspension of AI systems.

2. Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence: It consists of experts in the fields of technology, law, and academia who provide research and legal compliance-related support to the Apex Body conducting research on the application of AI in the legal system and evaluating AI tools for use in court systems.

3. AI Incidental System: It is headed by an officer in the District Judge and officers and experts in the fields of judicial administration, technology, data science, and law, as determined by the AI Committee. It is maintained by every AI secretariat for the recording of all AI incidents.

Controlling The Tech

Before the deployment of the AI system in court, they shall be evaluated through Controlled Environment Testing established under the supervision of the AI Secretariat. Furthermore, no private entity or vendor shall be allowed to provide any service in connection with an AI system deployed in court processes without the prior written approval of the Appropriate Authority. It also provides that training on the use of AI in Court processes should also be provided.

The Questions That Should Be Asked

The AI system that you are using, does it provide you with a Black Box response (not being able to tell how it came to a decision)? You should ensure that it is transparent and provides explainability. Since, in the case of false citations and authorities, advocates would have to face disciplinary proceedings under Sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act. Furthermore, to what extent could these AI systems be used? Actions by the AI Committee could be taken if there is any prohibited use of AI. At the end, AI shall be used as a tool to assist, but the final decision has to be taken by the lawyer, and in case of any issues, it would be the lawyer who is liable, not the AI. Thereby, before using an AI system, always ask the AI system that you are using if it could be trusted, if it provides you with an explanation for its decision, to what extent it could be relied on, and most importantly, always cross-check it. By all means, AI shall be used, but responsibly.

---

This article has been authored by Uddhav Gupta, LegalTech Fellow at the Indian LegalTech Network and a student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.