SC Draft AI Regulations: Human Oversight Over Judicial Outcomes

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India's AI committee has released the preliminary draft of the 'Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026', made public on June 3, 2026. The draft regulations prohibit the use of AI to determine judicial outcomes, bar AI-assisted sentencing without mandatory human oversight, and disallow the use of "opaque" or "unexplainable" AI systems in any court process. The regulations come amid growing concern over courts relying uncritically on AI-generated content, including in the rendering of judgments.

Background 

• In March 2026, a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha reprimanded a trial court for relying on non-existent judgments generated with the help of AI.  
• The Bench observed that such reliance was not merely an error in decision-making but amounted to judicial misconduct. This episode foregrounded the urgency of a structured regulatory framework governing AI adoption across Indian courts. 
• The draft has been prepared by a committee chaired by Justice P.S. Narasimha and comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva, Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Anoop Chitkara, and Suraj Govindaraj. Stakeholders and members of the public have been invited to submit comments and suggestions before the deadline of June 20, 2026.

Key Provisions of the Draft Regulations 

Assistive Capacity Only: 

• The draft regulations unequivocally state that AI systems used in court processes must "function solely in an assistive capacity" and remain "strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority."  
• The regulations do not envision AI as a decision-maker at any stage of judicial proceedings. 

Prohibition on Risk Scoring and Profiling: 

• The draft categorically bars the use of AI systems for "risk scoring" in court processes.  
• This includes assessing flight risk, predicting recidivism, evaluating bail eligibility, and determining the credibility of parties or witnesses. AI systems are also prohibited from profiling parties or witnesses on any ground. 

Heightened Safeguards for High-Risk Applications: 

• Applications that involve higher levels of risk to personal liberty, any lawful right of a person, or the integrity of judicial outcomes are subject to correspondingly heightened safeguards.  
• These include mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements and independent oversight mechanisms. 

Prohibition on Surveillance: 

• The draft bars authorities from using AI for the surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, advocates, litigants, and other court stakeholders, except as may be specifically authorised by applicable law. 

Data Protection and Anti-Bias Obligations: 

• The processing of personal data through AI systems is to be governed by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.  
• The regulations further mandate that AI systems must not perpetuate, amplify, or introduce bias on grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, gender, disability, language, economic status, or any other ground prohibited under the Constitution. 

Permissible Uses: 

• The draft permits the use of AI for administrative and logistical court functions — including case management, preparation of cause lists, scheduling of hearings, transcription of proceedings, and translation of judgments — provided these uses do not encroach upon judicial discretion. 

Digital Access and Inclusion: 

• The regulations caution against AI-assisted judicial systems widening digital divides. They direct that such systems remain accessible to all stakeholders, including those from rural, economically disadvantaged, or linguistically diverse communities.

Proposed Apex Body 

To supervise AI adoption in the judiciary and steer standard-setting and policy development, the draft proposes the creation of a full-time apex body at the Supreme Court level. Its proposed composition includes two Supreme Court judges nominated by the Chief Justice of India (one serving as ex-officio chairperson), two High Court Chief Justices and two High Court judges, a representative from an institution of national importance, a Joint Secretary-level officer from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, a finance expert, a cybersecurity expert, advocates with expertise in technology and data privacy law, and the professor heading the field of AI at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. Additional experts from research or academic institutions may be included with prior permission of the CJI.

Conclusion 

The draft AI regulations represent a significant step toward institutionalising the principle of judicial sovereignty over AI tools. By drawing a firm line between AI as an administrative aid and AI as a decision-making authority, the Supreme Court committee has signalled that technological efficiency cannot come at the cost of constitutional guarantees of fair trial, personal liberty, and judicial accountability. The framework — once finalised — will have far-reaching implications for how courts at every level adopt and deploy AI systems in India.