AI Rules in Indian Courts — The 2026 Tracker
As of 3 October 2026, three High Courts have AI rules in force: Kerala, Gujarat and Punjab & Haryana. The Supreme Court's AI regulations are still a draft, and the Bar Council of India has no rule on advocates' AI use. The binding law so far comes from two Supreme Court judgments of July and September 2026.
This tracker lists every formal AI instrument we could verify for Indian courts. That covers the Supreme Court, each High Court, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the district judiciary. Each row has a status, a date and a link to the best source we found. We re-check the whole table on the first working day of every month. The change log at the bottom shows what moved.
A note on what counts. A rule here means a policy, regulation, circular or binding judgment that tells judges, court staff or advocates what they may or may not do with AI. A tool such as SUPACE or SUVAS is not a rule, so tools sit in a separate section.
What are the key facts as of 3 October 2026?
The short version: one national draft, three High Court policies, two binding Supreme Court judgments, and no BCI rule.
| Fact | Status as of 3 Oct 2026 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court AI regulations for all courts | Draft (released 3 June 2026; comments closed 15 July 2026); not notified |
| High Courts with an AI policy or circular in force | 3 (Kerala, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana) |
| High Courts checked with no AI policy found | 16 (listed below) |
| BCI rule on advocates' AI use for research or drafting | None found. The SC directed the BCI to form a committee on 2 July 2026 |
| Leading SC judgment | Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank Ltd (2 July 2026): a decision built on AI-hallucinated citations is "no decision in the eyes of the law" |
| Latest SC judgment | Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India (2 Sept 2026): ₹425.27 crore customs penalty quashed |
| Standalone district-judiciary AI policy | None found. District courts are covered by their High Court's policy |
What has the Supreme Court issued on AI?
The Supreme Court has issued one draft regulation, one research paper and three judicial orders that matter. Only the judgments bind anyone today.
Administrative instruments
| Instrument | Date | Status | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (SC AI Committee) | Released 3 June 2026; comment deadline extended from 20 June to 15 July 2026 | Draft. Still described as a draft on 10 Sept 2026 | AI may assist but must not decide cases, sentence, assess credibility or score bail risk. Draft Regulation 43(3) makes lawyers and litigants declare AI use in pleadings and submissions. Filers bear full responsibility for fabricated material. Proposes an apex body, High Court AI committees, an AI register and audits | Draft with notices (Allahabad HC copy); SCC Online, 5 June 2026; LawBeat, 4 June 2026; The Week, 29 June 2026 |
| White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and Judiciary (Centre for Research and Planning) | 23 Nov 2025 | Research paper; not binding | Surveys AI tools and risks; recommends AI ethics committees in the SC and every High Court | LiveLaw report |
The full draft, with the 3 June notice and the 16 June extension notice, is hosted by the Allahabad High Court. We checked Regulation 43(3) against that copy: AI-assisted material in any document, pleading or evidence must be disclosed to the court by declaration or certificate.
Judicial orders
| Case | Date | Bench | What the Court did | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao | 27 Feb 2026 | Narasimha and Aradhe JJ | A trial court had relied on four AI-fabricated precedents. The SC said a decision based on fake judgments "is not an error" but may be misconduct. It issued notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and BCI and appointed Shyam Divan as amicus | SCC Online, 11 Mar 2026 |
| Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 653 | 2 July 2026 | Narasimha and Aradhe JJ | Set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders built on AI-hallucinated citations. Zero tolerance: such a decision is "no decision in the eyes of the law". Directed the BCI to form a committee to frame guiding principles and disciplinary measures | LiveLaw |
| Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1741 | 2 Sept 2026 | Datta and Nagu JJ | Quashed a ₹425.27 crore customs penalty that relied on fabricated citations, and the Gujarat HC order of 20 Jan 2026 upholding it. Remanded to a different officer. "Assistance can never be substituted for adjudication." | SCC Online, 3 Sept 2026 |
Note who was at fault in all three. It was the adjudicator, not counsel: a trial court, a tribunal and a customs officer. The rules being written now cover both sides of the bench.
Which High Courts have AI rules?
Three, and all three restrict judges and court staff rather than advocates. None of them regulates what an advocate files.
| High Court | Instrument | Date | Status | Key rules | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary, ref. HCKL/7490/2025-DI-3 | 19 July 2025 | In force | AI must not be used to arrive at any finding, relief, order or judgment. No uploading case facts or personal data to cloud AI tools; only SC- or HC-approved tools. Every output, including citations, verified by a person; audit records; mandatory training; errors reported to the Principal District Judge | Policy PDF (hosted by The Leaflet) |
| Gujarat | Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial and Court Administration | Reported 4 April 2026 (the PDF carries no date) | In force | Covers the HC and district courts, on court-owned or personal devices. Barred: decision-making, judicial reasoning, order or judgment drafting, evidence evaluation, confidential data in public tools. Allowed with verification: research, language editing, translation, transcription, scheduling. "Every Judge is personally responsible" for orders under their name | Gujarat HC PDF |
| Punjab & Haryana | Communication to district judges of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh | 6 April 2026 (per Bar & Bench) | In force (as reported) | No ChatGPT, Gemini or similar tools for writing judgments or legal research. Violations "viewed seriously" | Bar & Bench (circular itself not found online) |
Which High Courts have no AI policy yet?
We found no AI policy or circular for these 16 High Courts: Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka, Madras, Allahabad, Calcutta, Rajasthan, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, Tripura, Meghalaya and Uttarakhand. This is based on web searches, not a page-by-page read of each court's notifications, so treat it as "not found" rather than "does not exist". Courts we have not yet checked are not listed.
Several of these courts have case law even without a policy. For example, the Bombay High Court imposed ₹50,000 costs on a litigant for unverified AI-generated submissions in January 2026 (SCC Online, 19 Jan 2026). The Delhi High Court let a petitioner withdraw a plea after fake Supreme Court extracts were exposed in September 2025 (Bar & Bench). A full case tracker is coming in a separate post.
Has the Bar Council of India issued AI rules for advocates?
No. As of 3 October 2026 we found no BCI rule or circular on advocates using AI for research or drafting. We also found no report that the BCI has formed the committee the Supreme Court directed on 2 July 2026.
The BCI's stated position is that it does not need a new rule. In a submission reported by Bar & Bench on 4 June 2026, it told Parliament that responsibility for a fake citation lies with the advocate, not the tool, and that its existing disciplinary powers under sections 35 and 36 of the Advocates Act cover AI misuse (Bar & Bench, 4 June 2026).
The one BCI instrument that touches AI is its social-media and digital-conduct circular of July 2026. It covers courtroom reels, legal influencers and AI deepfakes, not AI-assisted legal work (SCC Online, 18 July 2026). Our post on what rules actually govern an advocate's use of AI explains why the duty to verify already applies without a BCI rule.
What about the district judiciary and eCourts?
No district court has a standalone AI policy that we could find. District judges and staff in Kerala, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh are bound by their High Court's instrument.
Nationally, eCourts Phase III plans AI, machine learning, OCR and NLP for translation, scheduling, filing and defect detection. On 18 Dec 2025 the Ministry of Law and Justice told Parliament that deployment is "limited to controlled pilot deployments" (PIB). That is a programme, not a rule.
What AI tools do Indian courts already use?
Courts already use two AI tools: SUVAS, which translates judgments into regional languages, and SUPACE, a research assistant. A PIB backgrounder of 11 Feb 2026 describes SUPACE as experimental. It also says an AI committee chaired by a sitting Supreme Court judge oversees pilots (PIB). Both are tools under court control. Neither sets rules for anyone else.
What should a law firm do while the rules are incomplete?
Act as if the draft Supreme Court regulation were already final. Its main demands for advocates follow from duties the Court is enforcing anyway:
- Verify every citation against the source judgment before filing. Read the judgment itself, not a summary or an AI answer. Both 2026 judgments turn on citations nobody checked.
- Keep a record of AI use per matter: which tool, for what task, and who verified the output. If Draft Regulation 43(3) is notified, you will need to declare this.
- Keep client data out of public AI tools. The Kerala and Gujarat policies bar it for judges. Clients will expect the same of their lawyers, and the DPDP Act points the same way.
- Check the court's own instrument if you appear before Kerala, Gujarat or Punjab & Haryana courts. They tell you what the bench will and will not accept.
- Write a one-page firm AI policy covering approved tools, banned uses, verification and disclosure. Update it when the final SC regulation lands.
Lawgix AI builds legal AI for Indian law firms, so we have a stake in how these rules turn out. The tracker reports what courts have issued, not what we would like them to issue. If you are weighing tools, our legal AI pricing guide for India compares published prices, and the Lawgix AI homepage explains our approach to checkable research.
Change log
| Date | Change |
|---|---|
| 3 Oct 2026 | Re-checked before publication: SC regulations still a draft; no BCI committee or rule found. Added the BCI's June 2026 statement to Parliament |
| 2 Oct 2026 | Tracker compiled. Baseline: SC draft regulations (not notified); Kerala, Gujarat, P&H policies; SC judgments of 27 Feb, 2 July and 2 Sept 2026; no BCI AI rule |
Next scheduled re-check: 2 November 2026, or sooner if the Supreme Court notifies the final regulations or the BCI issues rules.
Sources
- Supreme Court of India, draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, with notices of 3 and 16 June 2026 (Allahabad High Court copy) — https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/Final_draft_with_Notice_v2.pdf
- SCC Online, "Courts May Use AI, Judges Retain Control: Inside Supreme Court's Draft AI Regulations", 5 June 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/06/05/sc-issues-draft-ai-regulations-for-courts/
- LawBeat, draft AI rules and Regulation 43(3), 4 June 2026 — https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/supreme-court-releases-draft-ai-rules-for-courts-lawyers-must-disclose-use-of-ai-in-pleadings-1598628
- The Week, consultation extended to 15 July 2026, 29 June 2026 — https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2026/06/29/supreme-court-extends-consultation-on-ai-rules-for-courts-what-the-draft-proposes.html
- SCC Online, draft still pending, 10 Sept 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/10/supreme-court-ai-regulations-2026-existing-laws/
- LiveLaw, SC Centre for Research and Planning reports including the AI white paper — https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/before-the-end-of-cji-gavais-tenure-supreme-courts-in-house-research-centre-releases-10-pathbreaking-reports-310891
- SCC Online, Gummadi Usha Rani, 11 Mar 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/03/11/sc-raises-concern-use-ai-generated-fake-precedents/
- LiveLaw, Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank Ltd, 2 July 2026 — https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-sets-aside-nclt-judgment-for-using-ai-hallucinated-citations-asks-bci-to-examine-issue-539616
- SCC Online, Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 3 Sept 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/09/03/supreme-court-sets-aside-%E2%82%B9425-crore-customs-penalty-over-ai-generated-fake-citations/
- Kerala High Court, AI policy for district judiciary, 19 July 2025 — https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-07-22/mt4bw6n7/Kerala_HC_AI_Guidelines.pdf
- Gujarat High Court, AI policy — https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/hccms/sites/default/files/miscnotifications/Policy%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Judicial%20and%20Court%20Administration.pdf
- Bar & Bench, Punjab & Haryana HC communication to district judges, April 2026 — https://www.barandbench.com/news/punjab-haryana-high-court-tells-district-court-judges-not-to-use-ai-tools-to-write-judgments-or-do-legal-research
- Bar & Bench, what the BCI told Parliament on AI fake citations, 4 June 2026 — https://www.barandbench.com/news/can-lawyers-face-action-for-ai-generated-fake-citations-heres-what-bci-told-parliament
- SCC Online, Bombay HC ₹50,000 costs, 19 Jan 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/01/19/bom-hc-cost-unverified-ai-generated-submissions/
- Bar & Bench, Delhi HC plea withdrawn over fake citations — https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-allows-plea-to-be-withdrawn-after-petitioner-cites-fake-ai-generated-case-laws
- SCC Online, BCI social media and digital conduct circular, 18 July 2026 — https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/07/18/bci-social-media-digital-ethics-guidelines/
- PIB, eCourts Phase III AI, 18 Dec 2025 — https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2205770
- PIB, SUPACE and SUVAS backgrounder, 11 Feb 2026 — https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2226283
Related
- What rules actually govern an Indian advocate's use of AI (the rules pillar)
- Legal AI pricing in India (2026)
- Harvey AI pricing in India
- Lawgix AI
This is general information, not legal advice. Status as of 3 October 2026.