The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a Land Acquisition Collector cannot adjudicate disputes relating to entitlement or apportionment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The Court ruled that where a bona fide dispute exists, the Collector is statutorily bound to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 76 of the Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Vikas Suri passed the judgment in Gurdeep Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-11737-2026). Background of the Case The dispute arose from agreements to sell executed in 2005 and 2006 between late Attar Singh and the petitioners concerning agricultural land situated in Punjab. Although a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioners, subsequent litigation led to its cancellation by the High Court in contempt proceedings in 2008. However, while directing...
In a significant step towards the modernization of the Indian judicial system, the Supreme Court of India has published the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 and invited comments and suggestions from stakeholders and the general public.
The draft regulations have been prepared under the aegis of the Artificial Intelligence Committee of the Supreme Court and seek to establish a comprehensive framework governing the adoption, deployment, and use of Artificial Intelligence across courts in India. Comments and suggestions have been invited until 20 June 2026.
A Framework Based on Judicial Values
The proposed regulations emphasize that AI must remain a tool to assist the judiciary and must never replace human decision-making. The framework is built upon principles such as:
• Human primacy and judicial independence
• Rule of law and due process
• Fairness and non-discrimination
• Transparency and explainability
• Accountability and auditability
• Data protection and privacy
• Cyber security and data integrity
• Inclusivity and accessibility
The draft makes it clear that ultimate authority over judicial decisions will continue to rest exclusively with judges.
Permitted Uses of AI
The regulations permit the use of AI in several judicial and administrative functions, subject to approval and human oversight. These include:
• Case management and scheduling
• Cause-list preparation
• Automated transcription of court proceedings
• Translation of judgments and legal documents
• Legal research and precedent retrieval
• Citation verification and document summarisation
• Court administration and record management
• AI chatbots for litigant assistance
• Accessibility tools for persons with disabilities
• Anonymisation of judgments and court records
• Judicial administration and backlog monitoring
The draft framework therefore recognizes AI as a potential tool for improving efficiency and access to justice.
Strict Prohibitions
One of the most notable features of the draft regulations is the list of absolute prohibitions.
The regulations prohibit:
• AI-only judicial decision-making
• AI adjudication or sentencing without human oversight• Risk-scoring of individuals for bail, recidivism, or credibility assessment
• Prediction of future conduct of litigants, witnesses, or accused persons
• Use of opaque and unexplainable AI systems affecting legal rights
• AI-based surveillance of judges, lawyers, or litigants, except where specifically authorised by law
• Submission of AI-generated content as evidence without proper disclosure
• Any use of AI that compromises judicial independence or confidentiality of judicial deliberations
These safeguards reflect growing global concerns regarding algorithmic bias, transparency, and accountability.
Institutional Oversight
The draft proposes the creation of a permanent Apex Body at the Supreme Court level to regulate AI governance within the judiciary. The body would include judges, technical experts, cybersecurity specialists, finance experts, and legal professionals.
Several specialised committees have also been proposed, including:
• Judicial Committee
• Technical Committee
• Committee on Infrastructure and Finance
• Case and Data Management Committee
• Cyber Security Committee
The framework further proposes audits, AI registers, incident reporting mechanisms, and transparency requirements.
Why This Matters
The publication of these draft regulations marks one of the most comprehensive attempts by the Indian judiciary to establish formal rules governing Artificial Intelligence in courts.
While the draft encourages responsible innovation and technological advancement, it simultaneously reinforces that AI must remain subordinate to judicial reasoning and constitutional principles.
As courts across the world increasingly explore AI-assisted systems, India's proposed framework seeks to balance innovation with accountability, ensuring that technology enhances justice delivery without compromising judicial independence or fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court has invited stakeholders and members of the public to submit comments and suggestions before the final regulations are considered.
LawDaily will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the future of AI in India's justice system.
Comments
Post a Comment