Take the judiciary’s cue: Indian courts have achieved clarity on what AI enhances and what it endangers

Earlier this month, when the Gujarat high court and Punjab and Haryana high court barred judicial officers from using artificial intelligence (AI) for drafting judgements or doing legal research, they set out a clear framework for governing AI in high-stake settings. Judges and court staff are prohibited not only from using AI to decide cases, but also from drafting orders, evaluating evidence or assisting them in judicial reasoning.The Kerala high court took a similar stance in 2025. India’s Supreme Court has also kept AI away from the sphere of legal logic.

These restrictions follow years of digitization under the e-Courts programme. E-filing, video hearings and real-time case access are routine now, with AI layered in for support. AI is used for transcription, translation and flagging defects in filings, but with human oversight.

Tools like Suvas, LegRaa and Supace assist research and access, but do not influence judicial outcomes. Hence, the recent curbs are best understood as a careful line being drawn around AI. They don’t reject but confine this technology.

AI is being embraced as a tool for efficiency, but kept out of decision-making to preserve human agency in matters of justice. After all, this is a domain where errors—especially AI ‘hallucinations’—can be disastrous. The Gujarat high court’s policy is illustrative for its clarity of demarcation.

The evaluation of evidence, writing of rulings and the rationale behind them are treated as non-negotiable human domains. However, administrative tasks such as transcription and case management remain open to tech assistance. This approach stands in contrast with the government’s tightening grip on the internet.