The SCAORA mandatory AI disclosure Supreme Court draft regulations 2026 debate has intensified after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association submitted recommendations on the proposed AI rules.
SCAORA has urged the Supreme Court to remove the proposed requirement for advocates to disclose their use of artificial intelligence in legal work.
The association submitted its comments on the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026.
Challenge To Mandatory AI Disclosures
SCAORA opposed Regulations 43(3) and 43(4) of the draft regulations.
The association described mandatory AI disclosure as unjustified.
It argued that advocates already have professional and statutory duties regarding every court filing.
These duties arise under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
SCAORA stressed that advocates serve as officers of the court. They remain responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their pleadings, documents, and legal submissions.
Concerns Over Practical Difficulties
SCAORA also raised concerns about the practical impact of mandatory disclosures.
The association said that lawyers may find routine AI disclosures difficult to manage.
It also warned that such disclosures could prejudice litigants. In some cases, they could influence the perception of judges.
As an alternative, SCAORA proposed changes to the existing Special Leave Petition certificate.
Under its proposal, advocates would certify that they personally verified every precedent, statutory provision, and legal citation used in their pleadings.
Call For Phased AI Integration
SCAORA welcomed the Supreme Court’s efforts to regulate AI use in courts.
However, it urged a cautious and phased rollout.
The proposed framework would cover High Courts, district courts, tribunals, and statutory commissions.
SCAORA also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.
The association highlighted the Court’s strict approach to fabricated or hallucinated AI-generated precedents.
It therefore urged the judiciary to introduce comprehensive safeguards before using AI in functions that affect litigants’ rights.
Human Oversight And High-Risk AI
SCAORA described generative AI systems as opaque “black box” technologies.
Their internal reasoning may not always be transparent or traceable.
Therefore, the association recommended restrictions on unexplainable AI systems in high-risk judicial functions.
It also called for mandatory human oversight.
According to SCAORA, humans must remain involved in decisions that can directly affect litigants.
Technical Audits And Data Protection
SCAORA also recommended detailed audits of existing court AI systems.
The proposed review would cover technical, legal, ethical, and cybersecurity concerns.
The systems include SUPACE, SUVAS, SuSahayak, real-time transcription, e-SCR, and AI-based e-filing tools.
The association also raised concerns about foreign technology infrastructure processing court data.
It therefore called for stronger data sovereignty protections.
SCAORA further sought clearer definitions of key terms.
These include “Court Data”, “AI Service Provider”, “High-Risk AI Tools”, and “judicial resource allocation”.
The association also requested greater representation for Advocates-on-Record in AI governance and institutional oversight.
SCAORA AI Sub-Committee Leads Review
SCAORA’s AI Sub-Committee conducted a clause-by-clause review of the draft regulations.
SCAORA President Devvrat chaired the committee ex officio.
Vice-President Nikhil Jain and Honorary Secretary Yugandhara Pawar Jha served as Co-Chairpersons.
Advocate-on-Record Dr. Charu Mathur acted as Advisor. Pallavi Barua represented the Executive Committee.
The committee submitted its recommendations to Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Justice Narasimha heads the Supreme Court’s AI Committee with Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
The SCAORA mandatory AI disclosure Supreme Court draft regulations 2026 recommendations will now undergo further consideration before the Supreme Court finalises the draft rules.
Justice Narasimha acknowledged SCAORA’s contribution and assured the association that the recommendations would receive detailed consideration.
