Prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to determine judicial outcomes, the Supreme Court AI committee has proposed draft regulations that bar AI-assisted sentencing without mandatory human oversight, prevent AI systems from profiling parties or witnesses, and disallow the use of “opaque” or “unexplainable” AI systems in any court process.

The proposed regulations come amid concerns expressed by the top court in recent months over the growing reliance on AI by courts in rendering judgments. In March, a Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha chided a trial court for relying on non-existent judgments generated with the help of AI, observing that it was not merely “an error in decision-making” but amounted to judicial “misconduct”.

The preliminary draft of the ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026’, made public on Wednesday (June 3, 2026), underlines 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 committee, chaired by Supreme Court judge Justice P.S. Narasimha and comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva, Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Anoop Chitkara and Suraj Govindaraj, has invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders as well as members of the public on the draft regulations before they are finalised. The deadline for submitting responses is June 20.

‘Digital divides’

Under the draft regulations, the processing of personal data through AI systems shall be governed by the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. It also underlines 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.

“Applications involving higher levels of risk to personal liberty, any lawful right of a person, or the integrity of judicial outcomes shall be subject to correspondingly heightened safeguards, including mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements and independent oversight,” the draft states.

It further cautions that AI-assisted judicial systems should not “widen digital divides” and must remain accessible to all stakeholders, including those from rural, economically disadvantaged, or linguistically diverse communities.

While the draft regulations permit the use of AI for administrative functions such as case management, preparation of cause lists, scheduling of hearings, transcription of court proceedings and translation of judgments, they make it clear that AI systems cannot be used for “risk scoring” in court processes. This includes assessing flight risk, predicting recidivism, evaluating bail eligibility, or determining the credibility of parties or witnesses.

It also bars authorities from using AI systems for the surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, advocates, litigants and other stakeholders, “except as may be specifically authorised by applicable law for the time being in force”.

‘Apex body’

To supervise the adoption of AI in the judiciary and steer standard-setting and policy development, the draft regulations propose the creation of a full-time “apex body” at the Supreme Court.

The apex body, it recommends, would comprise two Supreme Court judges nominated by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), one of whom shall serve as the ex-officio chairperson; two High Court Chief Justices and two High Court judges nominated by the CJI; one member from an institution of national importance or any institution of repute, as nominated by the CJI; an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology; a finance expert and a cybersecurity expert nominated by the CJI; one or more advocates of standing with expertise in technology-related laws, data privacy or related fields; and the professor heading the field of Artificial Intelligence at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.

The rules also allow for additional experts from research institutions or academic bodies to be included with the prior permission of the CJI.