A Checklist for a New-Age Courtroom

Why in the News:

The Supreme Court released Draft Regulations on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Judiciary in June 2026 for public consultation. While the draft establishes several AI governance committees, it leaves key questions regarding institutional design, accountability, and AI standards unresolved before AI systems are deployed in courts.

Why do successive waves of court technology each create new oversight committees, and why is that a concern?

1. Committee proliferation: Every phase of judicial technology reform has created new committees. AI governance now proposes an Apex AI Body, five Standing Committees, High Court AI Committees, District AI Secretariats, and a Centre of Research and Excellence on AI (CoRE-AI).
2. Fragmented accountability: AI applications such as case scheduling simultaneously involve case management, digital infrastructure, court administration, and AI governance. Multiple committees dilute ownership, coordination, and decision making.

What institutional design would address this challenge, and what are the Indian precedents?

1. Need for a permanent institution: Instead of creating separate committees for every technological innovation, the judiciary requires one permanent technology institution that integrates the functions of the existing e-Committee, AI governance, and future digital initiatives.
2. Precedent – Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation (TNMSC): TNMSC institutionalised professional procurement of medicines, becoming a model adopted by several states.
3. Precedent – Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI): UIDAI serves as a permanent institution responsible for developing and maintaining the Aadhaar ecosystem.
4. Importance of permanence: Long term technology governance requires institutional continuity, technical expertise, and clear accountability, which rotating committees cannot consistently provide.

Why should AI standard setting be separated from procurement?

1. UPI model: The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) developed the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) standards, while private companies such as PhonePe and Google Pay built competing applications based on those standards.
2. Role of CoRE-AI: The proposed Centre of Research and Excellence on AI (CoRE-AI) should function as a neutral standard setting body, without financial or commercial interests in selecting AI vendors.
3. Separation of functions: A sound governance framework requires:
   • A permanent technical institution to develop AI standards.
   • A separate procurement authority to acquire AI systems.
   • A judicial oversight committee to approve AI applications for court use.

What happens if AI standards remain undefined?

1. Key unanswered questions: The draft regulations do not specify:
   • Explainability requirements for AI decisions.
   • Acceptable error rates for different judicial functions such as bail decisions versus case scheduling.
   • Standards governing training data, transparency, and validation.
2. Risk of inconsistent implementation: Without common national standards, each of India’s 25 High Courts may independently determine what constitutes an acceptable AI system, resulting in uneven adoption and inconsistent judicial practices.
3. Regulatory comparison: Just as pharmaceutical products must comply with uniform quality standards before approval, judicial AI requires national technical standards to ensure reliability, fairness, and public trust.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s Draft AI Regulations represent an important step towards integrating Artificial Intelligence into India’s judicial system. However, effective implementation requires a permanent institutional framework, a clear separation between standard setting and procurement, and uniform national AI standards. Without these safeguards, differences in technical capacity across High Courts could result in unequal AI governance and inconsistent standards of justice, undermining the objective of technology enabled judicial reform.