If you have been inside an Indian courtroom in the last year or so, you’ve probably noticed something different. Transcription software running quietly during constitutional bench hearings. Translation tools helping litigants make sense of judgments that used to arrive only in English. AI has been creeping into the justice system for a while now; what’s new is that the Supreme Court has finally decided this needs actual rules instead of case-by-case improvisation.

So, what’s actually in the draft?

In June 2026, the Supreme Court’s AI Committee, led by Justice P.S. Narasimha, put out a draft called the Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, and opened it up for public comment. It’s ambitious in scope: not just the Supreme Court, but High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals, and other statutory bodies would all fall under one common rulebook.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. The Committee itself was reconstituted only months earlier, and the Chief Justice has spoken publicly about the issue more than once. There’s also a sharper trigger: AI tools have been generating case citations that simply don’t exist, and some lawyers have filed them without double-checking. That’s not hypothetical anymore; it’s already happened, and the draft regulations are partly a direct response.

The line the Court won’t cross

Here’s the one idea that runs through the entire draft: AI can assist, but it cannot decide. Research, drafting support, scheduling, transcription, translating judgments, checking citations, managing case records all fair game. But actually, working out a question of law, weighing evidence, or handing down a verdict? That stays with a human judge, full stop.

It sounds obvious, maybe. But it matters in practice. For litigants, it means no part of their case is quietly being decided by an algorithm behind the scenes. For lawyers, it’s a pointed reminder that dumping AI-generated research into a filing without checking it yourself is not going to fly.

What lawyers should actually expect

A few things worth flagging for anyone practicing:

• You will likely have to disclose AI use. Lean on an AI tool for research or drafting, and expect a requirement to say so.
• Verification is still on you. The citation-fabrication problem isn’t going away, and the regulations make clear the accuracy sits with the lawyer, not the software.
• Some of this will genuinely help. Faster transcription and translation could speed up case management and make proceedings more usable for litigants uncomfortable in English, which, in India, is a lot of people.

And for litigants?

Mostly, this should be reassuring. The framework draws a firm line against AI touching judicial discretion, while still opening the door to real efficiency gains: quicker listings, faster translated orders, less time lost to administrative bottlenecks that have plagued Indian courts for years.

There’s also a governance layer built in: an apex body setting standards and approving tools, backed by specialized committees for judicial matters, infrastructure, data management, and cybersecurity. The idea seems to be oversight, rather than every court experimenting on its own.

Where this stands right now

Nothing’s final yet. The Committee pushed its comment window out to mid-July 2026, and the regulations are expected to be finalized and notified after that. Which means the specifics of exactly how disclosure will work, which tools get approved, and how any of this gets enforced are still open.

Zooming out

Only a handful of countries France, Austria, Greece have gone this far in formally regulating AI in their courts. Given how badly India’s judiciary needs efficiency, given the backlog numbers, it’s not hard to see the appeal. But the Court’s own language human primacy, transparency, accountability, judicial independence makes the priority clear: speed isn’t worth much if it costs you who’s actually making the call.

Worth keeping an eye on this one. Once these regulations are notified, they’ll shape how technology shows up at nearly every stage of litigation, from the first petition drafted to the final order signed.

Author by,
RVR Attorneys Associates