The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has urged the Supreme Court’s Artificial Intelligence Committee to reconsider and remove a proposed provision in the draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026” that would require lawyers to disclose whenever they use artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of legal documents, pleadings, submissions, research, or other court-related work. The recommendation forms part of SCAORA’s detailed response to the draft regulations released by the Supreme Court for public consultation.
The draft regulations represent one of the most significant attempts by the Indian judiciary to establish a comprehensive framework governing the use of artificial intelligence in courts and judicial processes. As AI technologies become increasingly integrated into legal practice, the judiciary has sought to develop rules that promote innovation while safeguarding judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the justice delivery system. The proposed framework seeks to ensure that AI remains a supportive tool rather than a substitute for human decision-making.
Among the various provisions included in the draft regulations, one of the most debated is the requirement that advocates and parties disclose to the court whenever AI tools have been used in preparing any material submitted before a judicial authority. The purpose of the provision is to promote transparency and enable courts to remain aware of the extent to which artificial intelligence has contributed to legal submissions. The requirement is also intended to address concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated content.
SCAORA, however, has expressed reservations regarding the practicality and necessity of such a disclosure requirement. According to the association, artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming an integral component of modern legal practice and is increasingly embedded within various software applications used by lawyers on a daily basis. Legal professionals routinely rely on technology for research, drafting, document review, language correction, data management, citation verification, and administrative functions. As AI capabilities become integrated into these tools, it may become difficult to determine precisely when a disclosure obligation arises.
The association has argued that requiring advocates to disclose every instance of AI assistance could create unnecessary procedural burdens without providing corresponding benefits to the judicial process. Lawyers frequently use technological tools to improve efficiency and accuracy, and the distinction between conventional software and AI-enabled systems is becoming increasingly blurred. In such circumstances, a mandatory disclosure regime could create uncertainty and lead to inconsistent implementation across different courts and legal practices.
SCAORA has emphasized that the primary responsibility for the contents of legal submissions should continue to rest with advocates rather than with the technology they employ. Under established principles of professional ethics and legal practice, lawyers are personally accountable for the accuracy, authenticity, and reliability of documents filed before courts. The association contends that this responsibility remains unchanged regardless of whether a lawyer uses artificial intelligence, legal databases, word-processing software, or other technological resources while preparing a case.
The concern regarding AI in legal practice arises largely from the possibility of errors in AI-generated content. Artificial intelligence systems are capable of producing inaccurate information, fabricated legal citations, misleading analyses, and non-existent precedents. Such errors have already attracted attention in legal systems around the world, where courts have encountered instances of lawyers relying on AI-generated material that contained fictional authorities or incorrect legal propositions. These developments have prompted regulators and judicial institutions to consider safeguards designed to ensure responsible use of the technology.
While acknowledging these risks, SCAORA has suggested that mandatory disclosure may not be the most effective method of addressing them. The association appears to favour a framework that focuses on professional responsibility, verification obligations, and accountability mechanisms rather than procedural disclosure requirements. In its view, lawyers should remain responsible for independently verifying all legal authorities, facts, and arguments presented before a court, irrespective of the tools used during preparation.
The Supreme Court’s draft regulations were formulated in response to the rapid growth of artificial intelligence across various sectors, including the legal profession. The judiciary recognizes that AI possesses considerable potential to improve efficiency, accessibility, and administrative functioning within courts. Technologies such as automated translation, transcription, document management, legal research assistance, and case management systems can significantly enhance judicial operations and improve access to justice.
At the same time, the draft regulations emphasize that artificial intelligence must remain subject to human supervision and control. The framework clearly states that AI systems cannot replace judges or independently determine judicial outcomes. Decisions affecting rights, liabilities, and legal consequences must continue to be made by human judicial officers exercising independent judgment. This principle of human primacy forms the foundation of the proposed regulatory structure.
The disclosure requirement was introduced within this broader framework of transparency and accountability. Supporters of the provision argue that courts should be informed when AI tools have contributed to legal submissions because such knowledge enables judges to assess the material more carefully. Given the possibility of AI-generated inaccuracies, transparency is viewed by some as an important safeguard against misuse or overreliance on technology.
However, critics of the provision, including SCAORA, question whether mandatory disclosure would achieve its intended objectives. They argue that judges already evaluate submissions based on their merits and that advocates remain accountable for every document filed before the court. According to this perspective, disclosure requirements may create additional procedural complexity without significantly enhancing judicial scrutiny or reliability.
The association has also raised broader concerns regarding the governance of artificial intelligence within the judicial system. These concerns include questions relating to oversight mechanisms, liability for AI-related errors, data protection safeguards, confidentiality obligations, cybersecurity measures, audit processes, and institutional accountability. As AI technologies continue to evolve, legal professionals are increasingly seeking clarity regarding the rules that will govern their use within judicial proceedings.
Another important issue highlighted by the debate is the changing nature of legal practice itself. The legal profession has historically adapted to technological advancements, from printed law reports and electronic databases to digital filing systems and virtual hearings. Artificial intelligence represents the latest stage in this technological evolution. Regulators therefore face the challenge of encouraging innovation while ensuring that ethical standards and professional responsibilities are preserved.
The consultation process initiated by the Supreme Court reflects an effort to engage stakeholders before finalizing the regulatory framework. Lawyers, judges, academics, technology experts, and institutions have been invited to provide feedback on the proposed regulations. SCAORA’s recommendations form part of this broader dialogue and illustrate the diversity of opinions regarding how AI should be regulated within the justice system.
The outcome of this consultation process is likely to have long-term implications for the future of legal practice in India. As AI tools become increasingly sophisticated and widely adopted, courts and regulators will need to establish clear standards governing their use. These standards must strike a balance between promoting technological advancement and protecting the fundamental values of fairness, accountability, transparency, and judicial independence.
In conclusion, SCAORA’s request to remove the mandatory AI disclosure requirement reflects an important debate about the role of artificial intelligence in legal practice. While the association recognizes the potential risks associated with AI-generated content, it argues that professional accountability should remain the central safeguard rather than mandatory disclosure obligations. The discussion forms part of the broader effort by the Supreme Court to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for AI in courts. The final regulations, once adopted, are expected to play a significant role in shaping how artificial intelligence is used within India’s legal system and how the legal profession adapts to emerging technological realities.
WhatsApp Group Invite
Join WhatsApp Community
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.