SCAORA seeks removal of mandatory AI disclosure requirement for lawyers in Supreme Court draft regulations

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

In its comments on the Supreme Court’s Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, SCAORA said advocates are already personally responsible for the accuracy of every filing under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, making a separate disclosure requirement unnecessary.

The recommendations have been submitted in response to the draft AI regulations released by the Supreme Court’s AI Committee, which seek to create a comprehensive framework governing the use of AI across the Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts, tribunals and statutory commissions.

While the draft permits AI-assisted legal research, drafting, translation, transcription and case management, it also proposes that parties disclose whenever AI tools are used in preparing pleadings, documents or evidence.

SCAORA said the disclosure requirement under Regulations 43(3) and 43(4) is “unjustified” and ignores the professional obligations already imposed on advocates.

“Advocates are officers of the court already bound by strict statutory codes of professional conduct…” it said.

It argued that requiring lawyers to routinely disclose AI usage would be impractical and could prejudice litigants or even influence the presiding judge.

Instead, SCAORA proposed amending the existing Special Leave Petition certificate to require advocates to certify that all legal citations, judicial precedents and statutory authorities relied upon have been personally verified.

Phased rollout instead of rapid deployment

While welcoming the Supreme Court’s attempt to regulate AI in courts, SCAORA urged a cautious and phased rollout.

It said AI should not be deployed in functions that directly affect litigants’ rights until adequate safeguards are in place. The Association also suggested replacing the draft’s emphasis on “innovation over restraint” with a more precautionary approach.

The report flags automation bias, AI hallucinations, opaque “black box” systems and the inability of present-generation AI models to explain their reasoning in the same manner as human judges.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., SCAORA stressed that AI-generated outputs must always remain subject to meaningful human oversight.

Bar should have a larger role

The Association said practising advocates have been largely excluded from the governance framework proposed in the draft regulations despite being among the primary users of the judicial system.

It proposed making the President of SCAORA or a nominee an ex-officio member of the Apex Body, while also seeking representation for practising advocates on the Judicial Committee, Case and Data Management Committee and AI Committees.

The report also criticised the proposed governance structure as excessively bureaucratic because of overlapping committees and approval mechanisms.

Data protection concerns

The Association said practising advocates have been largely excluded from the governance framework proposed in the draft regulations despite being among the primary users of the judicial system.

It proposed making the President of SCAORA or a nominee an ex-officio member of the Apex Body, while also seeking representation for practising advocates on the Judicial Committee, Case and Data Management Committee and AI Committees.

The report also criticised the proposed governance structure as excessively bureaucratic because of overlapping committees and approval mechanisms.

Existing AI systems should be audited

The Association said AI tools already deployed by the Supreme Court - including SUPACE, SUVAS, SuSahayak, AI-assisted transcription, e-SCR and AI-enabled e-filing systems - should undergo technical, legal, ethical and cybersecurity audits before the new framework is implemented.

It also sought clearer definitions of key terms such as “Court Data”, “AI Service Provider”, “High-Risk AI Tools” and “judicial resource allocation”, while reiterating that AI should remain assistive and that decisions affecting litigants must ultimately rest with human officers.

The Supreme Court’s draft regulations permit AI to be used for legal research, drafting assistance, translation, transcription, case management, scheduling and accessibility services. They prohibit AI from deciding cases, passing sentences, determining bail, evaluating witness credibility or replacing judicial decision-making.

The Court has invited comments and suggestions before finalising the framework.