AI Regulation in Judiciary: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea, Welcomes Suggestions via Mail

The petition had raised concerns over potential misuse of AI in generating fake cases and called for structured guidelines for judicial AI adoption.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the judiciary already uses AI cautiously, highlighting ongoing training programmes at judicial academies and the lessons learned from Kerala High Court’s structured AI practices. He noted that the matter provided a learning opportunity for both the bar and the bench.

Senior counsel representing the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.

The Court allowed withdrawal but clarified that suggestions and feedback on administrative AI use could still be submitted via email.

The Bench also comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition while emphasizing the importance of cautious and informed integration of AI technologies within the judicial system.

Filed through AOR Abhinav Shrivastava, the PIL highlights the imminent constitutional and human rights concerns arising from the unregulated and Opaque use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning technologies in the judicial system and governance.

It has been submitted that AI integrated into the Judiciary and Judicial functions should have data that is free from bias, and data ownership should be transparent enough to ensure stakeholders' liability.

On the skills of Gen AI to leverage advanced neural networks and unsupervised learning to generate new data, uncover hidden patterns, and automate complex processes can lead to 'hallucinations', resulting in fake case laws, Al bias, and lengthy observations. "This process of hallucinations would mean that the GenAI would not be based on precedents but on a law that might not even exist. Such arbitrariness is a clear violation of Article 14. Further, the citizens of the Country need to know the reasoning behind the judgment, and thus the use of GenAI would stand to violate Article 14..", the plea stated.

The plea also sought directions to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India to formulate a policy on the administrative side for the regulated & uniform use of GenAI in the Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies of India which may be adopted by the Hon'ble High Courts, the subordinate Courts of the respective High Courts, the quasi judicial bodies, and any other relevant stakeholders, as the case may be. Furthermore, it sought creation of an Expert Committee comprising relevant members & stakeholders, to comprehensively study and understand the impact of the use of GenAI in the Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies of India.

In a related news, on December 4, the Supreme Court had disposed of a PIL by Aarati Sah seeking a regulatory framework for deepfakes after the Centre informed that draft AI rules had already been formulated and released for public feedback.

Appearing for Meta, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had told the Court that the Centre has conducted multiple rounds of deliberations and stakeholder consultations before finalising the draft regulatory framework. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Facebook had added that the draft rules are now in the public domain for comments from all stakeholders.

Case Title: Kartikeya Rawal vs Union of India

Hearing Date: December 5, 2025

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi