SCAORA Raises Alarm Over Supreme Court AI Regulations

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) formally presented its suggestions and feedback regarding the Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026. This comprehensive submission was handed over to Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, the head of the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, advocating for a carefully measured and gradual integration of artificial intelligence within the justice delivery mechanism.

The Association's Executive Committee officially delivered the findings to Justice P.S. Narasimha, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, who was accompanied by Justice Alok Aradhe. Justice Narasimha acknowledged the extensive work carried out by SCAORA, giving his assurance that the proposed modifications and the broader Draft AI Regulations will undergo thorough and extensive deliberation over the forthcoming weeks.

Earlier in June, the Supreme Court's Artificial Intelligence Committee, which includes Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, published the Draft Regulations regulating the implementation of AI across the Supreme Court ecosystem and actively solicited feedback from various legal stakeholders.

SCAORA established a dedicated AI Sub-Committee to perform an exhaustive, provision-by-provision scrutiny of the suggested regulatory framework. Following this rigorous review, they finalized and filed their official document titled Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Regulations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026.

A primary recommendation within the report emphasizes that artificial intelligence architectures must not be introduced into operations that directly impact litigants until robust protective measures are firmly in place. The submission contends that current AI models cannot authentically justify how they formulate their conclusions, and consequently, they must not be relied upon for critical, high-risk judicial duties.

The document critiques the Draft Regulations for demanding “explainability” while concurrently allowing the operation of opaque AI technologies under increased monitoring. SCAORA maintains that this introduces a fundamental inconsistency since advanced generative AI frameworks function via intricate neural networks whose underlying logic cannot be practically tracked or authenticated by human operators. Therefore, the body strongly advises banning the use of opaque or “black box” AI mechanisms in highly sensitive judicial contexts.

SCAORA further points out the “black box paradox”, highlighting that even though the Draft Regulations impose final accountability on the judges and judicial officers utilizing these AI systems, there is no clear explanation of how such responsibility can be practically upheld when the technological reasoning process remains entirely inscrutable.

Additionally, the evaluation cautions against the dangers of AI hallucinations, drawing attention to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., wherein the judiciary took a “zero-tolerance” stance against fabricated or hallucinated machine-generated case laws. The association strongly suggests making “human-in-the-loop” and “human-on-the-loop” safety protocols obligatory for all AI-produced data integrated into court proceedings.

SCAORA likewise warns about the risks of automation bias, noting that judicial officers and court personnel operating under severe pressure might increasingly rely without question on machine-derived results. The submission observes that AI-supported administrative determinations, including the listing of urgent cases or spotting filing anomalies, can deeply impact the substantive rights of litigants despite being categorized merely as administrative tasks. Consequently, it advises limiting AI implementation even in administrative roles that significantly affect case trajectories.

Regarding data sovereignty, the feedback expresses deep apprehension about sensitive judicial records being managed through AI platforms owned by overseas tech corporations. It stresses that all court information must be stored exclusively within domestically controlled infrastructure and demands urgent security reviews of the AI applications currently utilized by the Supreme Court, mentioning SUPACE, SUVAS, real-time transcription tools, AI-aided e-filing, and SuSahayak.

The legal body also challenges the constitutional grounding of the Draft Regulations, observing that the text fails to clarify whether its authority stems from Article 145, Article 142, or if the guidelines are merely proposed as model benchmarks. The argument posits that while Article 145 grants the Supreme Court the power to formulate rules for its internal functioning, it does not bestow the authority to enforce mandatory regulations upon High Courts, which retain their own autonomous rule-making jurisdiction.

The detailed report further points out the lack of sufficient Bar representation within AI monitoring committees, while also flagging overlapping departmental duties and overly complex bureaucratic setups. To resolve this, it suggests a much wider inclusion of Advocates-on-Record in the policy-making, educational training, and systemic supervision of AI deployment.

Highlighting its core demands, SCAORA advocates for a highly cautious, step-by-step introduction of AI technologies in the courtroom, a strict ban on black-box systems for critical judicial tasks, compulsory human review of AI-generated content, heightened data localization measures, clear access to AI resources for the entire legal community, and a governance structure that values judicial autonomy and litigant protection above swift technological integration.

The AI Sub-Committee was led ex officio by SCAORA President Devvrat, with Vice-President Nikhil Jain and Honorary Secretary Yugandhara Pawar Jha acting as Co-Chairpersons. Advocate-on-Record Dr. Charu Mathur was designated as the primary Advisor, while Pallavi Barua served on behalf of the Executive Committee as a senior delegate. The working group was organized by Rajat Mittal, alongside Executive Members Nivedita Nair and Dr. Meenakshi.