On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court published the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, a framework that covers AI use in the Supreme Court, all High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals, and statutory bodies performing adjudicatory roles.
In our response to the Supreme Court, we point out two foundational questions that need to be answered before AI enters a courtroom.
The first is about institutions. The Draft Regulations create an apex AI body, five standing committees, High Court AI committees, district AI secretariats, and a Centre of Research and Excellence. We identify four structural concerns with the proposed structure: fragmentation of responsibility and overlapping mandates; limited institutional continuity; sub-optimal use of judicial time and lack of functional specialisation; and high transaction costs for innovation. Underlying all four is a single point: Institutional structures must not be built around individual technologies. Computerisation, digitisation, video conferencing, and AI are successive tools in the same transformation of court administration. The judiciary needs a permanent institution capable of absorbing the functions currently held by the e-Committee alongside the new AI governance mandate, and whatever technology comes next.
The second is about standards. The Draft Regulations establish who approves AI systems for court use and how. What they do not establish is what any system must actually demonstrate to earn that approval. What must a system explain, and to whom? What error rate is acceptable in a bail matter versus a scheduling task? Where does training data come from? Without these answers defined in advance, each of India’s 25 high courts must independently determine what constitutes an acceptable AI system, duplicating effort and, given the wide variation in technical capacity across India’s judiciary, arriving at different answers. Defined standards by a neutral standard-setting body would reduce the burden of evaluation for courts, give developers clarity and predictability, and make the process more transparent for the public.
Citation:
Comments on the Supreme Court's draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, Pavithra Manivannan and Supriya Sankaran, July 2026
