As per the same, the Court has proposed that lawyers may use AI tools to prepare pleadings and evidence but they must tell the court when they do so.
The draft makes it clear that lawyers or litigants cannot escape responsibility by blaming AI for false or misleading filings.
The proposed regulations would apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions across the country.
It has been published by the Supreme Court’s AI Committee and has been placed in the public domain for comments and suggestions till June 20.
The draft regulations set out in detail the functions for which AI may be deployed in courts, as well as a list of activities for which its use would be completely prohibited.
As per the same, the Court has proposed that lawyers may use AI tools to prepare pleadings and evidence but they must tell the court when they do so.
The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 permit AI-assisted legal research, drafting, translation, transcription and case management, but make it clear that judges alone will retain the authority to determine questions of law, facts and justice.
Regulation 43(3) of the draft regulations states that where an AI tool is used by any party or legal representative in the preparation or submission of any document, pleading or evidence, the AI-assisted character of such material must be disclosed to the court at the time of submission.
Thus, the framework encourages the adoption of the technology while drawing clear limits around its use in the justice delivery system.
Regulation 43(4) also empowers courts to seek details of the AI system used, the nature and extent of AI assistance taken and the steps adopted to verify the accuracy of any AI-generated content.
The draft makes it clear that lawyers or litigants cannot escape responsibility by blaming AI for false or misleading filings.
Regulation 43(6) states that if any document, pleading or evidence submitted to a court is found to be fabricated, false, misleading or inaccurate because of its AI-generated character, the person submitting it will bear full responsibility.
Such a person cannot rely on the AI-generated nature of the output as a defence. The court may also pass such orders as it deems fit against the responsible person.
The proposed regulations would apply to the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory commissions performing adjudicatory functions across the country.
It has been published by the Supreme Court’s AI Committee and has been placed in the public domain for comments and suggestions till June 20.
The draft regulations set out in detail the functions for which AI may be deployed in courts, as well as a list of activities for which its use would be completely prohibited.
