NyayAssist to roll out 10+ upgrades in June, keeping lawyers at the centre as Supreme Court’s AI draft takes shape

NyayAssist, a Mumbai-based artificial intelligence platform built for India’s advocates, law firms and law schools, has begun rolling out more than ten major upgrades to its platform through June. The company says the release is not a feature sprint, but a measured effort to strengthen the one thing legal technology cannot do without: trust.

On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India published draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, prepared under the aegis of its Artificial Intelligence Committee and open for public comment until June 20, 2026. The draft is one of the most comprehensive attempts yet to set out how AI may be used in courts. Its approach is clear, not prohibition for its own sake, but responsible adoption under strict safeguards grounded in human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection and judicial independence.

At the centre of that framework is the principle of human primacy. The draft makes clear that AI must remain strictly subservient to human judgment, function only in an assistive capacity, and never replace the judicial officer who alone retains authority over questions of law, fact and justice.

NyayAssist says its June rollout is organised around four commitments that reflect that standard, and that these principles have guided the platform’s development from the beginning.

Transparency: The draft requires high standards of transparency and explainability, and it also requires disclosure where AI-assisted material is submitted to a court. Across its June updates, NyayAssist is making its research more interrogable and easier to trace to source, so that lawyers can follow a proposition back to the underlying authority instead of taking it on faith. The platform is also being benchmarked independently, because the capability in a legal tool should be measured and shown, not merely claimed.

Human oversight: The draft is equally firm that AI output is advisory, not determinative, and that accountability remains with the human officer at all times. Several June changes are designed to keep the lawyer in control, from the way matters and client information are organised to how drafting is handled and how the platform integrates with tools lawyers already use. The pattern is consistent, the system suggests, and the advocate decides.

Verification: The draft says plainly that the opacity of a system, or the fact that it produced a hallucination, can never excuse a wrong or harmful decision. That makes verification a professional obligation, not a machine feature. NyayAssist’s research and citation tools are being upgraded with that in mind, to ground answers in verifiable material and make checking quick enough that it becomes part of ordinary workflow.

Primacy of human judgment: Beneath the technical language, the draft reflects a simple point, AI in law is most useful when it sharpens the lawyer’s own thinking, not when it substitutes for it. NyayAssist’s June rollout is meant to remove drudgery, surface relevant material faster, and then step back, leaving reasoning, strategy and final judgment where they belong, with the advocate.

“The draft reflects what we have believed from day one, the lawyer decides, always, and the tool must be able to show its work,” said Yash Rane, Founder of NyayAssist.

“Everything we are releasing this June is meant to make that real, more transparent, easier to verify, and firmly under human control. AI in law does not have a trust problem because it is too powerful. It has a trust problem because it must be checkable," he added.

One concrete example of the rollout is NyayAssist’s upgraded citation workflow. When a user asks for support on a legal proposition, the system now surfaces the source hierarchy beside the answer, links every cited proposition to a primary authority, and preserves a verification trail showing what was checked before the output was used. For a lawyer preparing a brief, that means the first draft may still come from AI, but the responsibility to confirm the proposition against the actual text of the judgment, statute or rule remains with the advocate, exactly as the draft contemplates.

Once finalised, the regulations are expected to shape how AI is approved, audited and disclosed across the Supreme Court, High Courts, tribunals and statutory commissions.

For the solo practitioner or Advocate-on-Record deciding whether to use AI in daily practice, and for the firm or institution deciding which tools to allow, the question is no longer how impressive a system looks; it is whether it is transparent, verifiable and controlled by human judgment, and whether it can earn trust under the Court’s standard.

Readers can explore the latest June upgrades and keep trying NyayAssist’s evolving feature set at nyayassist.ai. [nyayassist]

Disclaimer: This is a sponsored post.