Fri Dec 05 08:27:34 UTC 2025: Summary:

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking regulation of AI and machine learning in the judicial system. The court acknowledged potential risks like the creation of non-existent legal precedents but believes these issues can be addressed through internal training and awareness programs for judges and lawyers. The court encouraged the petitioner to submit administrative suggestions on the matter.

News Article:

Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Regulate AI in Judiciary

New Delhi, December 5, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India today declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) advocating for the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools within the judicial system.

The petition, filed by Kartikeya Rawal, raised concerns about the “unregulated” use of AI, specifically the potential for AI-generated content, such as fabricated legal precedents, to infiltrate and corrupt judicial processes.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the potential downsides of AI and ML in the judiciary. However, the court expressed confidence that these issues could be more effectively addressed through administrative channels, like judicial training programs, rather than through legally mandated regulations.

“We use [AI] in a very over-conscious manner, and we do not want this to overpower our judicial decision-making,” CJI Kant stated, emphasizing that AI should assist, but not replace, human judgment.

The Chief Justice emphasized that judges need to verify the AI-generated case laws and this can be dealt with in judicial academies and by the bar bodies by training judicial officers and lawyers.

Despite the court’s dismissal of the PIL, CJI Kant welcomed constructive recommendations from the petitioner regarding administrative safeguards. The court invited the petitioner to formally submit suggestions.

The petitioner, Mr. Rawal, subsequently withdrew his petition, indicating acceptance of the court’s position.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores its cautious approach to AI adoption in the judicial system, prioritizing internal mechanisms for ensuring accuracy and ethical use over external regulatory controls.

Read More