PUCAR // Public consultation

The Supreme Court wants your views on AI in its courts.

On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee published the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, a first-of-its-kind framework covering the Supreme Court, all High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals, and statutory bodies performing adjudicatory roles.

The draft rests on a simple hierarchy: AI may assist, but never adjudicate. It permits AI for research, summarisation, translation, transcription, scheduling, litigant-assistance chatbots, and court analytics, and absolutely prohibits AI-only decisions, AI-based risk scoring for bail or credibility, predictive profiling, surveillance of judges or lawyers, and undisclosed AI-generated evidence. Lawyers must disclose AI use in filings, and a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court would approve and supervise tools across the system.

Citizen feedback is open until 15 July 2026 (extended from June 20). Anyone (lawyers, technologists, litigants, or curious citizens) can email comments to the Member Secretary, AI Committee, at [email protected].

Send the Court your feedback Read the Court’s notice

What people are saying

The public record, so far.

Explainers, critiques, and formal submissions on the draft regulations. Click any card for a summary of the viewpoint, or open the original.

The Leaflet
Harsh Gour Explained: the SC's draft AI regulations, piece by piece A comprehensive walkthrough of the draft's structure and principles, and the open questions it leaves behind.
  • Framework
  • Definitions
Read the summary
The Leaflet
Harsh Gour Are India's courts ready to keep the promises this draft makes? The draft assumes an operational ecosystem, audits, secretariats, training, that many courts don't yet have.
  • Institutional capacity
  • Accountability
Read the summary
Naavi.org
M.G. Kodandaram The DPDP Act problem: told to comply with a law that doesn't cover the risk The draft mandates DPDP Act compliance, but that Act is silent on automated decision-making, creating a circularity problem.
  • Data protection
  • DPDP Act
Read the summary
LinkedIn
Vikas Mahendra · Co-founder, TERES Human-in-the-loop must be an active design requirement Saying 'the judge has final authority' isn't enough, the tool has to be designed so that authority is real.
  • HITL
  • Judicial independence
Read the summary
LinkedIn series
Vikas Mahendra · Co-founder, TERES The concerns and the risks: what AI displaces in complex disputes Is the human doing the load-bearing work? If not, the tool hasn't preserved judgment, it has displaced it.
  • Professional judgment
  • Risk
Read the summary
Formal submission
Deepika Kinhal & Subhashini Damodharan · TERES Eight formal critiques submitted to the SC's AI Committee From active HITL design to a common commencement date, the eight changes TERES believes the draft needs.
  • HITL
  • Explainability
  • Equity
Read the summary
LiveLaw
Varun Mehta & Ashirbad Nayak · Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Four gaps to close before the framework is finalised In-house-only audits, an underdeveloped grievance mechanism, unstated explainability standards, and non-binding training obligations.
  • Audits
  • Grievance
  • Standards
Read the summary
ThePrint
Sahaj Sankaran How India's draft stacks up against the EU, US, and China India sits between the EU's oversight model and the US's individual-responsibility patchwork, and firmly rejects China's adjudicating AI.
  • Global models
  • Policy design
Read the summary
Indian LegalTech Network
Harshith Viswanath, Yavisth Makkar, Uddhav Gupta & Mohit Mokal Community comments: transparent, technology-neutral, future-ready ILTN convened the legal and legaltech community before submitting formal comments to the AI Committee.
  • Community
  • Judicial independence
Read the summary
Formal submission
TrustBridge Five structural fixes: audits, scope, risk tiers, expertise, and objective boundaries TrustBridge's comments push for mandatory legal impact assessments, a defined list of covered bodies, and full-time technical expertise inside the committees.
  • Enforcement
  • Risk tiers
Read the summary

Ways to participate

Say something before July 15.

BengaluruWed 8 July 2026 · 6:00 to 8:00 PM
Bengaluru round-table: reading the draft together Bangalore International Centre, Domlur An open, in-person gathering to walk through the draft regulations clause by clause, share concerns, and shape collective feedback before the July 15 deadline.
Register interest
OnlineSat 11 July 2026 · 5:00 PM IST
Open online discussion: what should citizen feedback say? Video call, link on registration A community call for anyone who wants to understand the draft and contribute to a joint submission. No legal background needed.
Register interest