{"id":8963,"date":"2026-06-09T09:21:56","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T09:21:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=8963"},"modified":"2026-06-09T09:24:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T09:24:18","slug":"sc-draft-rules-on-ai-technology-can-assist-judges-not-replace-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/sc-draft-rules-on-ai-technology-can-assist-judges-not-replace-them\/","title":{"rendered":"SC draft rules on AI: Technology can assist judges, not replace them"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

New Delhi:<\/strong> The Supreme Court has taken a major step toward regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in India’s judicial system by releasing draft rules that clearly define where AI can and cannot be used in courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed rules, titled “Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026,” make it clear that AI can only assist judges and court staff\u2014it cannot replace human decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court has invited suggestions from judges, lawyers, experts, and the public until June 20 before finalizing the regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most important aspect of the draft is that AI will not be allowed to make judicial decisions. It cannot determine whether an accused person is guilty, whether bail should be granted, what sentence should be imposed, or whether a witness is trustworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court has emphasized that judicial decisions involve human judgment, empathy, evaluation of circumstances, and legal discretion, which cannot be delegated to machines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft rules also prohibit the use of AI-based “risk scoring” systems in criminal cases. This means AI cannot predict whether a person is likely to abscond, reoffend, or pose a threat to society, nor can it be used to assess a person’s credibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such systems have been controversial in several countries because they can produce biased or discriminatory results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another key provision is the ban on “black box” AI systems\u2014systems whose decision-making process cannot be explained or understood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court has said that transparency is essential in the justice system, so only AI tools with understandable and explainable functioning can be used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft regulations place strong emphasis on preventing discrimination. AI systems used by courts must not create or reinforce bias based on caste, religion, gender, language, disability, economic status, or any other constitutionally prohibited ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Special safeguards will apply in cases affecting personal liberty, fundamental rights, or significant legal outcomes, and human oversight will remain mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While restricting AI’s role in judicial decision-making, the Supreme Court has allowed its use in administrative and support functions. AI may be used for managing cases, preparing cause lists, scheduling hearings, transcribing court proceedings, translating judgments, and organizing or searching documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court believes AI can improve efficiency and reduce delays in these areas without interfering with judicial independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft also addresses concerns about digital inequality. The Court has said that AI-powered systems should not make justice less accessible to people from rural areas, economically weaker sections, or different linguistic backgrounds. Any technological reform must remain inclusive and ensure equal access to justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another important safeguard is that AI cannot be used for continuous surveillance of judges, lawyers, litigants, or other stakeholders unless specifically authorized by law. This provision aims to protect judicial independence and privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rules further require compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Since courts handle highly sensitive personal information, AI systems must follow strict privacy and data-protection standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To oversee the use of AI in the judiciary, the draft proposes the creation of a permanent apex body at the Supreme Court level. This body would include Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, technical experts, cybersecurity specialists, finance experts, and professionals specializing in data privacy and technology law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its role would be to develop standards, policies, and safeguards for AI use in courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The move comes after concerns about excessive reliance on AI in judicial work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2026, the Supreme Court criticized a lower court for citing non-existent judgments generated by AI in a judicial order, calling it a serious lapse and raising concerns about the unchecked use of AI tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, the draft rules send a clear message: AI can help courts work faster and more efficiently, but it cannot replace judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final responsibility for delivering justice, assessing evidence, granting bail, determining punishment, and deciding legal disputes will always remain with human judges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If adopted, these regulations will provide India with one of the most detailed frameworks in the world governing the use of AI in the judiciary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken a major step toward regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in India’s judicial system by releasing draft rules that clearly define where AI can and cannot be used in courts. The proposed rules, titled “Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026,” make it clear … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8964,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,29],"tags":[546,880,872,865,858,857,869,856,875,855,874,878,841,248,877,881,864,270,479,873,862,861,868,871,227,78,601,866,867,257,863,879,870,48,860,742,32,859,876],"class_list":["post-8963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supreme-court","category-top-stories","tag-access-to-justice","tag-ai-and-law","tag-ai-draft-rules","tag-ai-ethics","tag-ai-governance","tag-ai-in-courts","tag-ai-policy-india","tag-ai-regulations-2026","tag-ai-transparency","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-bail-decisions","tag-black-box-ai","tag-chief-justice-surya-kant","tag-constitutional-rights","tag-court-administration","tag-court-digitization","tag-court-reforms","tag-court-technology","tag-criminal-justice","tag-cybersecurity","tag-data-privacy","tag-digital-justice","tag-digital-personal-data-protection-act-2023","tag-explainable-ai","tag-indian-courts","tag-indian-judiciary","tag-judicial-accountability","tag-judicial-decision-making","tag-judicial-independence","tag-judicial-reforms","tag-judiciary-ai-rules","tag-justice-system","tag-legal-innovation","tag-legal-news","tag-legal-technology","tag-legal-update","tag-supreme-court","tag-supreme-court-ai-framework","tag-technology-and-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8963","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8963"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8963\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8965,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8963\/revisions\/8965"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8964"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}