Author: Shabnam Dahiya
College: Gurugram University, Gurugram
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a significant role in making judicial administration efficient, managing caselaw and ensuring access to justice in judicial workplace across the globe. India’s judiciary has also started using AI instead of e-Courts in judicial administration and work. However, the application of AI in Indian judicial workplace has brought several constitutional and statutory challenges including data privacy, accountability and judicial independence while also posing ethical dilemmas surrounding algorithm bias, lack of transparency and threats to judicial autonomy. Recently, Supreme Court of India has issued a notice warning against the application of AI in making judgements and precedents as they might create fake judgements and precedents and has demanded human oversight, transparency and bias audits.
“Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” issued by the Supreme Court of India is the first set of guidelines for the use of AI technology within the judicial institutions of India. Although the application of AI in judicial workplace brings certain efficiencies and benefits, yet the same is accompanied with limitations laid down by the Court in order to safeguard Constitutional values, judicial independence and rule of law.
The framework derives legitimacy from the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 19 and 21. It is also reinforced by laws like Information Technology Act, 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This article is an exploration of the legality of AI in Indian Courts and highlights the necessity of retaining human-centric judiciary in the age of technological advancement.
To the Point
The Supreme Court of India, through its Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, has adopted a constitutional perspective of balancing the use of AI technology in the judicial system. The court permits the use of AI for purposes of administration and assistance like the management of cases, preparation of cause lists, scheduling of hearings, document summarization, translation of judgements and transcription of court proceedings. The court also emphasizes that the process of personal data collection through the use of AI will be subject to the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. On the other hand, AI is explicitly forbidden from performing core judicial functions, including judging cases, passing of sentencing, bail determination, witness assessment, and judicial reasoning. AI cannot perpetuate, amplify, or introduce any form of bias in any matter forbidden by the Constitution. It also bars authorities from using AI systems for the surveillance or continuous monitoring of judicial officers, and advocates, except when authorized by law.
The guiding principle underlying the framework is that AI must remain strictly subordinate to human judgement and judicial authority and must operate within the framework provided by the Constitution of India, rule of law and principles of natural justice. In simple words, Justice cannot be algorithmic in any case irrespective of the questions arises in the case.
Use of Legal Jargon
The use of AI is requirement of modern world but it interferes with constitution provisions and judicial discretion. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal protection and non-arbitrariness. AI trained on historical data give rise to arbitrariness and infringes this fundamental right.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression which includes the right to receive information and public access to court proceedings and judgements. AI technology, which limits access to legal material, amounts to a violation of this fundamental right.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life and personal liberty which can only be restricted by the procedure established by the law that is just, fair and reasonable. AI systems rely on excessive data collection by unauthorized means, raising privacy concerns and infringes right to privacy under this article.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides statutory framework for personal data privacy and establishes obligations for data fiduciaries when AI is used. It is violated when AI processes excessive data and transfer sensitive data without authorisation.
The artificial intelligence is trained based on historical law cases and thus will be unable to decide on the basis of case context as judicial discretion involves elements such as compassion, understanding and moral reasoning which the current artificial intelligence lacks.
The Proof
The Supreme Court AI Committee released the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, emphasizing that AI shall remain “strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority.”
These regulations prohibit the use of AI technology from:
- Making decisions about legal judgements.
- Granting bail.
- Imposing sentences.
- Predicting criminal activity in the future.
- Establishing credibility of witnesses.
- Profiling litigants and accused persons.
Supreme Court places these restrictions on the application of AI systems, but at the same time, it acknowledged the need of AI systems in reducing the number of pending cases in court and legal AI tools to reduce the workload on research.
That’s why the Court permitted the use of AI for the following purposes:
- Legal research and citing legal precedents.
- Citation verification.
- Translation and transcription.
- Scheduling Cases.
- Administrative function of Court.
- Assistants for litigants.
- Assistive technologies for people with disabilities.
- Summarizing and managing documents.
The regulations further mandates transparency, accountability, interpretability, cybersecurity protocols, and prioritize human supervision of AI systems used in courts. These regulations aim to uphold the judicial independence and integrity in the justice system.
Case Laws:
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):
The Supreme Court ruled that right to privacy is an integral part of fundamental right, right to life and personal liberty, under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The use of AI tools should adhere to the provisions of privacy and data protection.
- Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018):
According to the Supreme Court, the right of access to justice comes under the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 and the right to information guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court encouraged the use of technology in judicial proceedings so that reasonable use of technology can be made in courts.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):
The Court emphasized transparency and proportionality in governmental actions. These principles are directly relevant to AI governance in the judiciary.
- Buckeye Trust v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (PCIT) (2025):
The ITAT suo moto recalled its December 2024 order as it is entirely based on inadvertent errors, which included the citation of fictitious precedents in the judgement.
- Supreme Court of India White Paper on Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary, 2025:
The Supreme Court released a white paper outlining the guidelines for the use of AI by legal institutions, attorneys and clerks while maintaining human oversight on the usage of AI.
- Warning from Supreme Court of India on use of AI Generated Judgements, March 2026:
The Supreme Court of India put on hold a judgement by a lower court in a property dispute case in Andhra Pradesh because the lower court’s judgement was based on artificial intelligence generated judgements. It is termed as “institutional concern” and “misconduct” since AI generated judgements do affect the integrity of the judicial process.
Conclusions
Artificial Intelligence is capable of transforming courts into highly efficient systems that are characterized by high levels of efficiency and increased availability of justice. On the other hand, the use of such technology in court environments requires the existence of strong regulatory framework to prevent the challenges arise out of the use of AI in judicial system. It is imperative that judicial decisions making be based on human intervention, with AI acting as a facilitative tool for making decisions. The Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 issued by the Supreme Court of India set up a groundbreaking framework for responsible implementation of AI in the Indian judiciary. These regulations promote innovation in technology, but uphold fundamental principles enshrined within our Constitution such as judicial independence, procedural fairness, protection of privacy and the rule of law.
Thus, AI can only be used as an assistive tool capable of improving efficiency, accessibility and court administration. However, judicial reasoning, adjudication, and the determination of rights and liabilities are all tasks that can only be performed by humans and cannot be delegated to algorithms. The future of AI in Indian court workplaces therefore lies in responsible deployment, continuous oversight, transparency, accountability and unwavering human control over the administration of justice.
FAQ
Q1. What judicial work can AI do?
AI can help in conducting legal research, translating legal documents, transcription of legal papers, document summarization, citation verification etc.
Q2. Is it possible for AI to decide cases based on Supreme Court Guidelines of 2026?
No, as per the guidelines, AI is not allowed to make decisions regarding judicial cases.
Q3. Why is AI is not allowed to decide cases?
Because judicial decisions require human logic, understanding of constitutional law, empathy, accountability among other attributes that cannot be assigned to AI.
Q4. What is algorithmic bias?
Algorithmic bias refers when AI based decision making causes discrimination or unfair treatment as a result of historical data sets and faulty algorithms.
Q5. How does the framework protect privacy?
The framework mandates data protection measures, cybersecurity safeguards, and responsible handling of judicial information.
