A checklist for a new-age courtroom

Source: The post “A checklist for a new-age courtroom” has been created based on “A checklist for a new-age courtroom” published in “Indian Express” on 22nd July 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper II – Governance

Context: The Supreme Court has released draft regulations for the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in courts to govern AI adoption, create oversight institutions and prescribe approval processes. As AI is still at an early stage in the judiciary, the regulatory framework must remain adaptable while establishing strong institutional and technical foundations.

Key Concerns in the Use of AI in Courts

1. Lack of Long-term Institutional Framework

1. The draft regulations propose multiple AI governance bodies at the Supreme Court, High Court and district levels.
2. Creating separate institutions for every new technology may fragment accountability and delay decision-making.
3. The judiciary requires a permanent institution capable of managing all technology-related functions rather than technology-specific committees.

2. Absence of Uniform Technical Standards

1. The regulations specify who will approve AI systems but do not define what standards AI systems must satisfy before approval.
2. The absence of common benchmarks may result in inconsistent evaluation of AI systems.

3. Risk of Inconsistent Justice

1. Each High Court may independently decide what constitutes an acceptable AI system.
2. Differences in technical capacity across High Courts could lead to varying approval standards and inconsistent judicial outcomes.

4. Lack of Clear Performance Benchmarks

1. The regulations do not specify the level of explainability required from AI systems.
2. They also do not define acceptable error rates for different judicial functions such as bail decisions and case scheduling.
3. The source and quality of AI training data have also not been prescribed.

5. Conflict between Standard-setting and Procurement

1. The same institution should not both set standards and procure AI systems.
2. Combining these functions may compromise neutrality and transparency in AI governance.

Measures for Responsible AI Adoption

1. Establish a Permanent Technology Institution

1. The judiciary should create a permanent institution that integrates existing e-Committee functions with future AI governance.
2. Such an institution would provide continuity, expertise and clear ownership of technology reforms.

2. Develop Uniform National Standards

1. Standardised benchmarks should define explainability, accuracy, acceptable error rates and training data requirements for AI systems.
2. Uniform standards would ensure consistency across all courts.

3. Create an Independent Standards Body

1. The proposed Centre of Research and Excellence on AI (CoRE-AI) should function as an independent technical body with no procurement role.
2. It should focus exclusively on developing and updating AI standards.

4. Separate Standards from Procurement

1. A permanent technical institution should procure AI systems based on established standards.
2. A judicial committee should independently approve AI systems to maintain transparency and accountability.

5. Build Future-ready Governance

1. AI regulations should establish principles that remain relevant as technology evolves.
2. The governance framework should support future technological innovations beyond AI.

Conclusion: AI has the potential to improve judicial administration, but its adoption must be guided by strong institutions, uniform standards and independent oversight. A future-ready governance framework will ensure that AI strengthens efficiency without compromising consistency, fairness and the integrity of the justice system.

Question: Discuss the key concerns in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Indian judiciary. Suggest measures for ensuring responsible AI adoption in courts.

Source: Indian Express