AI disclosure will make lawyers’ lives difficult: Delhi High Court Justice Prathiba M Singh

Delhi High Court Justice Prathiba M Singh has questioned the need to immediately require lawyers to disclose their use of artificial intelligence (AI), saying such requirements would increase their compliance burden and eventually become another set of templated affidavits.

The remarks assume significance in light of the Supreme Court’s draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026. The draft proposes mandatory disclosure when lawyers or litigants use AI to prepare pleadings, documents, submissions or evidence.

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) has also recommended that the Court drops the proposed requirement mandating lawyers to disclose whenever they use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to prepare pleadings, documents or evidence.

Justice Singh was speaking during a fireside chat with Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak on the Future of ADR, AI and Legal Technology in the Digital Era.

The session formed part of the International ADR Conference, 2026, held under the theme ADR Pathways to Legal Harmony, organised by Maadhyam.

Responding to Deepak’s question on whether disclosure norms were necessary until an institutional framework was introduced, Justice Singh said,

"I think disclosure norms is just going to make lawyers’ life more difficult."

Justice Singh highlighted the technological requirements that lawyers already have to navigate under the Commercial Courts Act and the electronic filing system.

“They have to OCR documents, e-file documents and at the end of the day, even if you ask for disclosures, they all become templated affidavits, right?” she said.

The judge added that India’s adversarial legal system itself provided some protection against inaccurate or fabricated AI-generated material. If one party relied on such material, the opposing party was likely to flag it before the court, she explained.

“At the moment it’s just churning, so let it churn a little more. Let the guidelines all be drafted and published."

The Supreme Court had released the draft AI regulations in June and invited comments from stakeholders. Among other things, the proposed framework allows courts to seek details about the AI system used, the assistance it provided and the steps taken to verify its output.

"AI is going to be used. You wouldn't want lawyers to come and lie to you saying they don't use AI. They should use AI, but with the human verification standard. Without human verification, it can be an absolute disaster," Justice Singh said.

She referred to a tax case in which a Goods and Services Tax department order cited 4 judgments, 3 of which did not exist. The Delhi High Court consequently set aside the order.

Justice Singh also recalled an appeal involving a trial court judgment whose reasoning did not correlate with the pleadings. After the lawyer analysed its contents, the High Court prima facie observed that it appeared to be an AI-drafted judgment.

"AI could assist judges and lawyers with research, summarisation and preparation of drafts, but could never replace human decision-making," she emphasised.

Justice Singh also called upon the Supreme Court to develop an AI platform exclusively for the judiciary. Judicial data should remain under the judiciary’s control and must not be fed into public databases, she said.

“We could use a large language model, but we should get our own AI platform prepared, with our own algorithms, the data residing within the control of the judiciary, the models being available within the judiciary."

She warned that using public AI platforms for judicial information could seriously affect privacy and confidentiality, particularly in matrimonial and criminal cases containing sensitive allegations.

On the use of technology in lower courts, Justice Singh said that the district judiciary was not yet fully prepared to adopt AI-based platforms. Its existing digital and physical infrastructure should first be stabilised, possibly for another 5-7 years, she suggested.

“Get a cheaper live transcription software for the entire country, and you will see how criminal trials will move,” she said.