Whether Draft AI Rules Apply To High Courts ?

India’s Supreme Court published a draft regulation titled *Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026* on June 3, 2026, inviting public feedback. The draft outlines mandatory AI standards, prohibitions, and a permanent national bureaucracy—including an Apex Body, research centers, and committees—to oversee AI implementation across all courts. However, legal scholars question its constitutional validity, as it lacks statutory backing and purports to legislate over High Courts, which are independent constitutional bodies under Articles 215 and 129. The draft’s authority remains unclear, as it is issued *under the aegis of* the Supreme Court’s AI Committee—a judicial body without legislative power. Article 145 restricts the Court to framing rules for its own procedures, not binding directives for the entire judiciary. Additionally, the 7th Schedule’s Concurrent List (Entry 11A) reserves court administration for Parliament and state legislatures, making the draft’s reach legally contentious. The proposed rules extend beyond courts, imposing disclosure duties on litigants and advocates (Regulation 43) and establishing liability for AI-generated pleadings. While procedural oversight is permissible, the draft’s national code—enforced by a Supreme Court-appointed Apex Body—lacks precedent and risks usurping legislative functions. High Courts, as equals under Article 227, are not administratively subordinate, further complicating compliance. Critics argue the draft’s structure—including funded bureaucracies, procurement rules (Regulation 46), and intellectual-property provisions—mirrors legislative work. Without enabling legislation, the Supreme Court cannot unilaterally impose such sweeping reforms. The draft’s *minimum mandatory standards* (Regulation 24(a)) also limit High Courts’ autonomy, as they can only issue *non-inconsistent* directions, a power not recognized in constitutional law. Legal experts warn the draft’s enforcement mechanism—triggered by the Chief Justice’s notification—bypasses democratic oversight. If adopted, it could set a precedent for judicial overreach in policy-making, undermining the separation of powers. The debate hinges on whether AI governance in courts requires legislative action or can be addressed through judicial rule-making.