Regulation Tracker
AI rules for legal practice in India
As of 2026-09-04, 8 official documents govern AI use by lawyers, judges or litigants in India. 2 require disclosure or certification of AI use, 5 impose an explicit verification duty, and 7 prohibit some use outright. The incident tracker records 8 incidents in this jurisdiction.
India category map →
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2026 setting aside a customs penalty of Rs 425.27 crore because the Additional Commissioner's order relied on AI-generated citations that were non-existent or misrepresented. AI may serve as training wheels but entrusting it with the pilot's seat would be imprudent and dangerous; the matter was remanded to a different officer.
Judgment (guidance) · Verification duty · Prohibition
2026-09-02In force
BCI
Bar Council of India circular of 17 July 2026 on advocates', law students' and interns' online conduct. Advocates publishing legal-awareness content must add disclaimers and accurately disclose any use of generative-AI tools; fabricated judgments, fake citations, AI-generated non-existent case law and deepfake courtroom content are prohibited, with disciplinary referral or contempt where warranted.
Regulation · Disclosure · Prohibition
2026-07-17In force
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court judgment of 2 July 2026 setting aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on six non-existent, AI-hallucinated precedents. A decision resting on fake or hallucinated material is no decision in law; Bar and Bench owe a zero-tolerance duty to verify AI-generated authority, and the Bar Council of India was directed to frame guidelines and disciplinary measures.
Judgment (guidance) · Verification duty · Prohibition
2026-07-02In force
Supreme Court of India
Draft regulations published by the Supreme Court of India's AI Committee on 3 June 2026 for the Supreme Court, all High Courts and all subordinate courts and tribunals. AI may assist with research, drafting, transcription and citation checks but may not decide cases or assess credibility; lawyers must disclose AI use in pleadings. Comments closed 15 July 2026.
Regulation · Disclosure · Prohibition · Verification duty · Record-keeping
2026-06-03Consultation
Punjab and Haryana High CourtPunjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
Administrative communication from the Punjab and Haryana High Court Registrar General, reported 7 April 2026, prohibiting all judicial officers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh from using AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Meta AI for drafting orders or judgments or for legal research, in order to preserve human judicial reasoning.
Policy · Prohibition
2026-04-06In force
Gujarat High CourtGujarat
Gujarat High Court policy of April 2026 for the district judiciary, issued under Articles 227 and 235. AI is permitted solely as a neutral administrative and research instrument through High Court-defined tools; it may not be used for decision-making, reasoning, drafting substantive orders, bail or sentencing; AI citations and summaries must be independently verified.
Policy · Prohibition · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2026-04-01In force
MeitY
Non-binding national AI governance framework released by MeitY on 5 November 2025 under the IndiaAI Mission: seven guiding principles, recommendations across six governance pillars, and a sectoral approach leaving domain rules to sectoral regulators. It contains no risk classification for justice or legal uses and creates no new statute.
Guidance · Permissive
2025-11-05In force
Kerala High CourtKerala
A policy issued by the High Court of Kerala on 19 July 2025 for the state's district judiciary, the first by an Indian High Court. Judges and court staff may use AI only for assistance and must not use it to reach findings, orders or judgments; outputs must be verified and confidential case data kept out of public tools.
Policy · Prohibition · Verification duty · Confidentiality
2025-07-19In force
Descriptive reference only: this page records what each rule requires. Missing a document? Tell us.