Authored By: Akshita Dubey
NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
I. INTRODUCTION
Until recently, discussions surrounding artificial intelligence in the legal profession were largely theoretical. However, in today’s world, AI-powered tools are already assisting courts with legal research, translation and transcription, indicating that the debate has shifted from whether AI should be used to how its use ought to be regulated.1 Artificial intelligence is no longer confined to the technology sector; it has become part of everyday life, influencing almost all sectors from governance and commerce to healthcare, education and the administration of justice. As legal systems across the world embrace this transformation, India stands at a critical juncture.
In India, this technological transformation is evident in the judiciary’s adoption of AI-powered tools such as the Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency (SUPACE), the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), Technology Enabled Resolution (TERES) and LegRAA.2 The increasing institutional acceptance of AI presents both unprecedented opportunities and complex legal challenges. AI’s potential to improve judicial efficiency by reducing delays, improving legal research, facilitating multilingual accessibility, enhancing case management and strengthening access to justice represents the opportunities.3 The real debate is therefore no longer whether AI should be adopted; instead, it concerns the limits within which AI should operate so that efficiency is achieved without compromising fairness, accountability or judicial independence. This concern is significant, as judicial independence, procedural fairness and the rule of law remain paramount in the Indian constitutional democracy.
This article seeks to examine the extent to which artificial intelligence can transform legal practice in India without compromising judicial independence, professional ethics, accountability and regulatory compliance. Through this central question, it addresses three interrelated questions: first, how artificial intelligence is currently being integrated into legal practice in India; secondly, whether the existing Indian legal framework is adequate to regulate AI in legal practice or whether additional safeguards are required; and lastly, whether AI threatens professional independence and poses legal, ethical and professional challenges.
This article argues that artificial intelligence represents the future of legal practice in India; however, its successful integration depends upon the establishment of a robust regulatory framework that incorporates comprehensive ethical and regulatory safeguards. Against this background, AI should be viewed as an assistive instrument rather than an adjudicative model that replaces human discretion or judicial reasoning.4
The scope of this article is confined to the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings, with special emphasis on its application within the Indian judiciary and court administration. The discussion focuses on judicial AI initiatives and evaluates the advantages and challenges associated with AI-assisted legal proceedings. Lastly, this article proposes measures necessary to ensure that technological innovation advances the administration of justice without compromising constitutional values.
II. THE EVOLVING LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INDIAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
India’s approach to integrating artificial intelligence into judicial proceedings is shaped by constitutional principles that emphasise fairness, judicial independence, and human judgment. While India has not yet enacted a comprehensive statute governing artificial intelligence, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution provide the constitutional framework against which any AI-assisted judicial process must be assessed.5 Their significance increases as algorithmic systems begin to play a greater role in legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these constitutional principles. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 by holding that every legal procedure must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary.6 Subsequently, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Court held privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 and stressed the need to protect personal data and ensure transparency in digital governance.7 Both decisions, although not directly related to artificial intelligence, make it clear that technological innovation cannot override constitutional guarantees. Therefore, the use of AI in legal proceedings must be compatible with due process, judicial independence and human oversight.8
The same constitutional principles are reflected in the Supreme Court’s emerging regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence. The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 adopt the principle of human primacy, expressly prohibiting AI systems from adjudicating disputes, predicting judicial outcomes, or replacing judges in decision-making.9 The regulations instead mandate a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) model, requiring that all AI-generated outputs are reviewed by a judge before they take any legal effect. The Regulations also focus on transparency, explainability, verification of AI-generated research and citations, and protection of confidential judicial information.10 Taken together, these safeguards reinforce the idea that AI is intended to support judicial functions rather than replace judicial discretion.
India’s willingness to incorporate artificial intelligence into legal proceedings is also reflected in the Supreme Court’s adoption of AI for a range of administrative and assistive functions. Tools such as SUPACE facilitate legal research and precedent identification; SUVAS enhances multilingual access to justice through AI-assisted translation of judgments; TERES provides real-time transcription of constitutional proceedings; while LegRAA supports legal research and document analysis under judicial supervision.11 In a similar vein, the Kerala High Court’s policy governing AI use in subordinate courts permits AI-assisted transcription and administrative functions while expressly prohibiting its use for judicial reasoning or decision-making.12 Together, these initiatives demonstrate a conscious effort to improve efficiency, accessibility and case management while preserving the constitutional role of judges.
These developments suggest that the Indian judiciary has consciously adopted a cautious and balanced approach towards artificial intelligence. Rather than treating AI as a replacement for judges, it has limited its role to supporting judicial administration while preserving human decision-making. This concept of regulated innovation forms the foundation for assessing the future of AI-assisted legal proceedings.13
III. JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: INDIAN AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
Indian constitutional jurisprudence, together with emerging international developments, shows an increasing inclination towards accepting AI as an aid to legal proceedings. This increasing adoption of artificial intelligence within judicial systems gives rise to one important question: is it possible to enhance the process of justice using technology without compromising judicial independence? Although approaches differ, one feature remains common across most of them: artificial intelligence has been seen as an assistive tool to aid judicial efficiency rather than replace human adjudication. India’s evolving regulatory framework follows this international direction.14
One of the earliest and most frequently cited decisions examining the use of artificial intelligence in judicial proceedings is the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Loomis. The case involved the use of the COMPAS algorithm, an AI-assisted risk assessment tool that was used during sentencing. Although the court permitted its use, it was subject to significant safeguards. It stressed that COMPAS could not impose the sentence on its own and that the trial judge remained the ultimate decision-maker. The judgment therefore recognised that algorithmic tools may assist but not adjudicate.15 This decision received criticism due to studies revealing racial bias, inaccuracies in predictions, and the opaque “black-box” feature of the software, which makes it difficult for defendants to challenge the algorithm’s assessment.16
India has adopted a more cautious approach. The draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 expressly prohibit AI from judging disputes, predicting judicial decisions, or determining any matter concerning personal liberty without mandatory human oversight. This reflects a constitutional commitment to fairness, transparency and judicial independence, ensuring that AI functions as an assistive tool rather than an autonomous decision-maker.17
India’s approach aligns with broader international thinking. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations both advocate a human-centred approach to AI governance, meaning that AI should support judicial administration by improving efficiency and access to justice, while remaining transparent, accountable and subject to meaningful human oversight.18 For example, Singapore employs AI to assist with legal research, document management and case administration; Brazil has developed AI systems to classify cases and manage heavy backlogs; while Estonia has incorporated AI into administrative judicial functions, ensuring human oversight over judicial determinations. Even though these systems differ in their design, they share a common principle: that AI should improve the administration of justice while preserving judicial independence and human accountability.19 In this sense, India’s emerging AI framework is far from being an isolated development, but rather belongs to the wider trend whereby innovations in technology serve to improve the justice system.
Comparative judicial practice therefore shows that the issue is no longer whether AI should be integrated into legal proceedings, but rather how it should be regulated. India’s preference for an assistive AI model can thus be considered a constitutionally legitimate and internationally supported approach, one whose practical benefits and regulatory challenges merit closer evaluation.20
IV. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS THE FUTURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES AND THE WAY FORWARD
A. Artificial Intelligence as the Future of Legal Proceedings
Artificial intelligence is often viewed as a threat to the legal profession; however, when used responsibly, it has the potential to strengthen rather than weaken the administration of justice. The Indian judiciary faces challenges such as pendency, procedural delays and an increasing workload. While AI alone cannot resolve these problems, it can assist courts by handling routine administrative tasks that consume considerable time. For example, AI can support legal research, identify relevant precedents, organize case records, detect defects in e-filings and help with scheduling hearings. This would allow judges, court clerks and registry officials to devote more time to responsibilities that require legal reasoning and human judgment.21 The use of tools such as SUVAS has improved multilingual access to judgments, making legal knowledge easily available to litigants across different regions of India. AI can also help manage cases efficiently by enabling courts to determine which cases deserve priority attention, such as cases of domestic violence and maintenance, where delay could severely affect the rights and safety of vulnerable individuals.22
These examples show that the real value of AI lies not in replacing judges but in supporting them. When used within constitutional and regulatory limits, AI is capable of enhancing the efficiency, availability and responsiveness of legal processes without eliminating the human dimension.23
B. Challenges to the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Proceedings
Despite its advantages, the integration of artificial intelligence into legal proceedings is not free from challenges. Among the greatest challenges is the reliability of AI-generated outputs, as generative AI systems are known for producing inaccurate information, fabricated case citations and incorrect legal reasoning — commonly referred to as “AI hallucinations.” In legal proceedings, such errors may have serious consequences if relied upon without proper verification. This concern is particularly significant, as the administration of justice demands a higher degree of accuracy than most other professions.24
Privacy and confidentiality-related issues also need to be considered seriously. Court records often contain sensitive personal information, and the use of external AI platforms can put such information at risk of being misused. Many AI systems also lack transparency, as they operate on “black-box” models, which makes it difficult to understand how a particular output has been generated. This lack of transparency is inconsistent with the principles of fairness, accountability and reasoned decision-making that form the foundations of the Indian judiciary.25
These concerns should not be viewed as arguments against the adoption of AI, but rather as underscoring the importance of proper regulation, human oversight, and careful application of AI, so that it remains an assistive tool without compromising the integrity of legal proceedings.26
C. Is India’s Existing Regulatory Framework Sufficient?
India’s emerging regulatory framework indicates a deliberate attempt to ensure that artificial intelligence is integrated into legal proceedings without undermining constitutional principles. For instance, the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, contain critical provisions that include mandatory human oversight, transparency, explainability and verification of AI-generated outputs. This shows that the judiciary recognizes both the opportunities and the risks associated with AI, and has attempted to maintain a balance between technological advancement and judicial independence.27
The existing framework cannot be regarded as sufficient, as the regulations are still in the draft stage and only regulate the use of AI within courts. They do not address broader issues such as the use of AI by lawyers, ethical standards, or liability for such actions. Considering the rapid speed at which AI continues to evolve, India would benefit from an independent legislative framework that governs the implementation of AI across the legal system without being too rigid to accommodate future technological developments.28
D. Recommendations and the Way Forward
Artificial intelligence is likely to become more prominent within the Indian legal system; therefore, any future framework must allow technology to improve the efficiency and accessibility of legal proceedings without interfering with the independence of the judiciary. To achieve this, India should go beyond current drafts and establish a legal framework governing AI in the field of law. Mandatory training programs should be introduced for judges, lawyers and court employees to help them use AI systems effectively and responsibly. Similarly, the Bar Council of India should develop ethical guidelines governing AI-assisted legal research, drafting and client representation. Regular audits of AI systems, certification of judiciary-approved AI tools, and periodic review by a judicial AI committee would further prove beneficial.29
Moreover, there is still limited legal literature on the application of AI in legal processes in India while remaining consistent with constitutional values. As technology continues to evolve, legal research and regulatory reforms must evolve accordingly. With appropriate measures, AI should be viewed not as an adjudicating tool but as an assistive tool capable of strengthening the administration of justice.30
V. CONCLUSION
It is clear that artificial intelligence has begun to reshape the administration of justice in India. As demonstrated in this article, AI’s greatest value lies not in replacing judges or legal professionals but in supporting them to carry out their work more effectively through better research, case management, translation, scheduling and access to justice.31 If used responsibly, AI has the potential to reduce delays, improve judicial efficiency and provide access to legal services without compromising judicial independence or constitutional values.
However, the increasing application of AI presents challenges that cannot be ignored. Accuracy, transparency, privacy and professional accountability are some of these challenges, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive regulatory framework that develops hand in hand with technology.32 India’s emerging regulatory framework is a significant step in this direction, but it cannot remain static.33 As artificial intelligence develops, the law and ethics governing its use must evolve in response to its impact on legal practice.
The future of AI in the Indian legal system will ultimately be determined not by the technology itself but by how it is regulated. With proper regulation and meaningful human oversight, artificial intelligence can strengthen, not hinder, the administration of justice.
REFERENCE(S):
Cases
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248.
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
Legislation and Official Documents
Constitution of India, 1950.
Kerala High Court, Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary (July 2025).
Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee of the Supreme Court of India Releases Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (2025).
Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (Draft).
Books
Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Cambridge University Press 2020).
Secondary Sources
Dr. B. Nandhini, Artificial Intelligence and the Indian Legal System, International Journal of Business and Economic Research (2025).
Harvard Law Review, State v. Loomis, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1530 (2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, AI in Justice Administration and Access to Justice, in Governing with Artificial Intelligence (2025).
ProPublica, Machine Bias (2016).
Artificial Intelligence: Its Impact on the Indian Legal System, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law (2022).
United Nations University, AI and Law: Navigating the Future Together (2024).
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Artificial Intelligence in the Law Field.
Endnote(S):
1. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts (Draft 2026); Press Information Bureau, Gov’t of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee of the Supreme Court of India Releases Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (2025).
2. Press Information Bureau, Gov’t of India, supra; Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, supra.
3. Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. (OECD), AI in Justice Administration and Access to Justice, in Governing with Artificial Intelligence (2025); Univ. of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Artificial Intelligence in the Law Field.
4. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law 139–62 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020).
5. INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21.
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
8. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law 39–46 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020).
9. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (Draft 2025).
10. Id.
11. Press Information Bureau, Gov’t of India, supra note 2.
12. Kerala High Court, Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary (July 2025).
13. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 210–18; OECD, supra note 3.
14. Id.
15. State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
16. Julia Angwin et al., Machine Bias, ProPublica (May 23, 2016); State v. Loomis, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1530 (2017).
17. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, supra note 9.
18. OECD, supra note 3; United Nations Univ., AI and Law: Navigating the Future Together (2024).
19. Id.
20. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 210–18; OECD, supra note 3.
21. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 150–62; Dr. B. Nandhini, Artificial Intelligence and the Indian Legal System, Int’l J. Bus. & Econ. Rsch. (2025).
22. Press Information Bureau, Gov’t of India, supra note 2.
23. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 210–18.
24. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 97–105; Artificial Intelligence: Its Impact on the Indian Legal System, Indian J. Integrated Rsch. L. (2022).
25. Julia Angwin et al., supra note 16; Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 109–16.
26. United Nations Univ., supra note 18; OECD, supra note 3.
27. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, supra note 9.
28. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 223–32; Dr. B. Nandhini, supra note 21.
29. Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 210–25; OECD, supra note 3.
30. Dr. B. Nandhini, supra note 21; Artificial Intelligence: Its Impact on the Indian Legal System, supra note 24.
31. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, supra note 1; OECD, supra note 3.
32. U.N. Univ., supra note 18; Ryan Abbott, supra note 4, at 181–95.
33. Supreme Court of India, Artificial Intelligence Committee, supra note 1; Press Information Bureau, Gov’t of India, supra note 2.
