Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming every sector, including law. As courts across the world experiment with AI-powered transcription tools, case-management algorithms and research assistants, questions surrounding accountability and regulation continue to emerge. On 5 December 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed one such concern while hearing a public interest litigation seeking guidelines on the “unregulated use of AI in courts.”
During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made it clear that the judiciary is extremely cautious with technology. He emphasised that AI would never be allowed to overpower judicial decision-making, reiterating that the independence and human discretion of judges remain central to the Indian justice system.
CJI Surya Kant: “We Don’t Want AI To Overpower the Judicial Process”
While hearing the PIL filed by Karthikeya Rawal, represented by Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das, the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi firmly rejected the suggestion that the judiciary was engaging in unregulated or irresponsible use of AI tools.
The CJI stated:
“There is no question of unregulated use by us. I, my brothers and sisters have spoken on this — that we are using it in a very careful manner. We don’t want AI and machine learning to overpower the judicial decision-making process — many times we have highlighted this.”
This is yet another affirmation from the Supreme Court that while the judiciary is open to adopting technological innovation, it refuses to compromise on due process, judicial discretion, confidentiality, or factual accuracy.
Concerns Over Fake AI-Generated Case Laws
One of the core concerns raised by the petitioner was the increasing circulation of AI-generated fake legal precedents. The counsel pointed out that lawyers occasionally cite judgments fabricated by generative AI tools, leading to confusion and potential miscarriage of justice.
CJI Surya Kant responded by placing the responsibility on legal professionals:
“AI tools might have generated fake precedents because advocates must have cited them somewhere. Lawyers must remain alert and ensure they do not rely on fabricated material.”
The CJI reminded the Bar that professional responsibility requires verifying citations, whether produced manually or using AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or legal research AIs. Courts across jurisdictions — including the U.S., U.K., and Europe — have reported similar incidents of fictitious case laws generated by AI, making this a global issue.
Reference to Supreme Court’s AI White Paper
The petitioner also referred to the Supreme Court’s white paper on the use of AI, a document that lays out preliminary standards and best practices for integrating technology with court functioning. The white paper itself acknowledges both the potential and the risks associated with AI in legal proceedings.
AI can support procedural tasks such as:
- Transcription
- Translation
- Listing assistance
- Document summarisation
- Research simplification
However, AI cannot—and should not—make judicial decisions, interpret statutes authoritatively, or provide binding precedents.
Kerala High Court’s Responsible AI Policy Discussed
The counsel also pointed out the Kerala High Court’s recently formulated “Guiding Principles for the Responsible Use of AI in District Judiciary.” This policy is one of the first of its kind among Indian High Courts and emphasises:
- Transparency in AI deployment
- Human oversight
- Prevention of bias and discrimination
- Mandatory verification of AI-generated outputs
- Data protection measures
Responding to this, CJI Surya Kant commented:
“You are speaking as if we do not know what is happening in the Kerala High Court.”
He added that he had been in touch with the senior leadership regarding the policy, and such documents require thorough consultation before being implemented elsewhere.
This indicates that the Supreme Court is not only aware of developments in High Courts but is actively exploring them while shaping its long-term AI strategy.
Court Allows Petitioner to Withdraw and Give Suggestions on Administrative Side
After hearing the court’s observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the PIL to instead provide suggestions directly to the Supreme Court’s administrative side, which oversees policy-making and court-management.
The bench accepted the request and passed the order:
“Sr counsel seeks permission to withdraw the matter, and is permitted to withdraw this petition; however, the petitioner is allowed to submit the suggestions to us on the administrative side.”
Thus, rather than issuing judicial directions, the Supreme Court emphasised that AI regulation in courts is better handled through administrative and consultative mechanisms.
Why the Supreme Court’s Stand Matters
The case—W.P.(C) No. 1041/2025, Karthikeya Rawal vs. Union of India—raises important questions about AI governance in Indian courts. The Supreme Court’s position highlights three critical principles:
1. AI Will Not Replace Judges
The judiciary sees AI only as an assistive tool. Decisions must always remain human-made.
2. Verification Is Mandatory
Lawyers must verify every citation. AI cannot be used as a shortcut for legal research without due diligence.
3. Policy Will Be Developed Through Consultation
The judiciary is in the process of crafting AI frameworks, but these will be developed through careful analysis, white papers, and pilot implementation—not in haste.
The Road Ahead: Balancing Innovation With Responsibility
India’s justice system is undergoing a digital transformation. E-filing, virtual hearings, digital copies, translation tools, and the Supreme Court’s AI-based transcription system are becoming part of everyday court functioning.
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that technology must enhance justice, not distort it. As AI becomes more capable, the need for transparent regulation, ethical design, and human oversight becomes even more critical.
The judiciary’s stance sets the tone for the future: responsible innovation, strict supervision, and human-centric decision-making will remain the pillars of AI integration in Indian courts.
Also Read
