Supreme Court's AI Rules Proposed to Apply to High Courts over which it has Limited Administrative Control

Draft AI Regulations circulated by the Supreme Court provide for its application even to High Courts. But for appointments and transfers, the Constitution of India does not provide for any administrative control of Supreme Court over high courts. This raises questions on the future of the regulations.

By Mahima Katal

New Delhi, June 10: The Supreme Court of India's move towards developing a framework for the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary has sparked a larger constitutional debate: does the apex court possess the authority to formulate AI rules for courts across the country, or does such an exercise encroach upon the administrative autonomy of High Courts?

As artificial intelligence finds increasing application in legal research, translation, transcription, case management and judicial administration, courts around the world are grappling with questions of governance and accountability. In India, however, the debate is not confined to technology. It also concerns the constitutional architecture of the judiciary itself.

Even as the draft AI regulations circulated by the Supreme Court is set to be applicable even to high courts if cleared in the form it exists, some high courts like the Gujarat High Court has already framed its AI rules. Critics say a uniform regulation is required but it is probably possible only if high courts adopt the regulations drafted by the Artificial Intelligence Committe of the Supreme Court. It is not clear if high courts were consulted in the process.

The Case for Supreme Court-Led AI Rules

Supporters of a nationwide framework argue that the judiciary functions as an integrated institution and that technological standards cannot be left entirely to individual courts.

Artificial intelligence systems deployed within courts may affect litigants, lawyers and judges across jurisdictions. Different standards adopted by different High Courts could create inconsistencies in issues such as data protection, transparency, accuracy, disclosure requirements and safeguards against algorithmic bias.

The Supreme Court has historically played a significant role in shaping judicial administration. Through its constitutional powers and judicial directions, it has influenced matters ranging from procedural reforms to digitisation initiatives. Proponents of a centralized AI framework may therefore contend that the Court is well-positioned to establish minimum standards for the responsible use of emerging technologies within the justice system.

From this perspective, AI governance may be viewed less as an administrative matter and more as a question of maintaining uniformity and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Constitutional Concern

Critics, however, point to the constitutional autonomy enjoyed by High Courts.

While the Supreme Court stands at the apex of India's judicial hierarchy, the Constitution also grants significant administrative authority to High Courts. Articles 225, 229 and 235 recognize their control over internal administration, staffing and the subordinate judiciary within their respective jurisdictions.

This has led some observers to question whether a nationwide AI framework issued by the Supreme Court would amount to administrative rule-making beyond its constitutional mandate.

The concern is not necessarily about the desirability of AI safeguards. Rather, it is about institutional competence and constitutional boundaries. If High Courts are entrusted with the administration of their own institutions, should they also retain the authority to determine how technologies are implemented within those institutions?

For critics, the issue raises broader questions about judicial federalism and the distribution of power within the Indian judiciary.

Rules, Guidelines or Recommendations?

A key aspect of the debate concerns the legal nature of any proposed framework.

If the Supreme Court merely issues advisory guidelines or model principles, High Courts may remain free to adapt them according to local requirements.

If, however, the framework is treated as binding across jurisdictions, questions may arise regarding the source of such authority.

The distinction between mandatory rules and persuasive guidance could therefore become central to any future discussion about the framework's constitutional validity.

Technology and Judicial Federalism

The controversy illustrates a challenge that is likely to become more common as courts adopt advanced technologies.

Artificial intelligence often demands standardisation. Constitutional governance, by contrast, frequently distributes authority among multiple institutions.

The debate over judicial AI therefore reflects a deeper tension: should technological governance within the judiciary be centralized to ensure uniformity, or should it remain decentralized in accordance with the constitutional autonomy of High Courts?

An Open Question

At present, the controversy presents no easy answers. The Constitution clearly establishes the Supreme Court as the country's highest judicial authority, while simultaneously preserving the institutional independence of High Courts.

The emergence of artificial intelligence has brought these two principles into direct conversation. As courts continue to experiment with new technologies, the question may no longer be whether AI should be used within the judiciary, but who possesses the constitutional authority to regulate its use.

The answer could shape not only the future of judicial technology in India, but also the evolving relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Courts in the digital age.