The Supreme Court of India Proposes Regulatory Framework for the Integration of Artificial Intelligence within Judicial Proceedings.
印度最高法院建議建立人工智慧於司法程序整合之監管框架
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has released a draft regulatory framework intended to govern the application of artificial intelligence (AI) across all levels of the judiciary while maintaining human primacy in legal adjudication.
印度最高法院已發布一份監管框架草案，旨在管理人工智慧（AI）在司法機關所有層級的應用，同時確保人類在法律裁決中佔主導地位。
Main Body
The proposed 'Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026' establish a dichotomy between permissible administrative assistance and prohibited adjudicatory functions. Under the proposed regime, AI is restricted to a supportive capacity, encompassing tasks such as precedent retrieval, transcription, and document summarization. Conversely, Regulation 20 mandates an absolute prohibition on the use of AI for the independent determination of judicial outcomes, sentencing, or the assessment of bail eligibility. The framework specifically precludes the deployment of 'black box' systems—characterized by a lack of transparency—and prohibits AI-driven risk scoring or behavioral profiling of legal actors.
擬議的《2026年法院使用人工智慧條例》在允許的行政協助與禁止的裁決功能之間建立了區分。在擬議的制度下，AI 僅限於輔助能力，涵蓋前例檢索、轉錄和文件摘要等任務。相反地，第 20 條規定絕對禁止使用 AI 獨立決定司法結果、量刑或評估保釋資格。該框架明確排除部署缺乏透明度的「黑盒子」系統，並禁止對法律參與者進行 AI 驅動的風險評分或行為分析。
Institutional accountability is central to the draft, which stipulates that the responsibility for legal errors remains with the human practitioner or judicial officer, regardless of AI involvement. To ensure transparency, the regulations require legal professionals to disclose the use of AI in filings via formal declarations. Should AI-generated material be found inaccurate or fabricated, the submitting party is held fully liable, as the phenomenon of 'hallucinations' does not constitute a valid legal defense.
機構問責是該草案的核心，規定無論 AI 是否參與，法律錯誤的責任仍由人類執業者或司法官員承擔。為確保透明度，條例要求法律專業人士在提交文件時，必須透過正式聲明披露 AI 的使用情況。若發現 AI 生成的材料不準確或造假，提交方需承擔全部責任，因為「幻覺」現象不能構成有效的法律辯護。
Parallel to these regulations, Chief Justice Surya Kant has articulated a philosophical positioning on the intersection of technology and sovereignty. In a lecture at Birkbeck College, the Chief Justice characterized AI as an operational reality that necessitates a framework grounded in constitutional values and human dignity. He posited that while AI offers significant potential to enhance the administration of justice and reduce systemic delays, it must not supplant the human authorship of governing principles. This perspective aligns with the proposed creation of a permanent apex body and a Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) to oversee the technical and ethical implementation of these tools.
與這些條例平行的是，首席大法官 Surya Kant 針對技術與主權的交集闡述了一種哲學定位。在 Birkbeck College 的講座中，首席大法官將 AI 定義為一種運作現實，需要一個基於憲法價值與人類尊嚴的框架。他認為，雖然 AI 在提升司法行政效率與減少系統性延遲方面具有巨大潛力，但絕不能取代人類對管理原則的主導地位。這一觀點與擬議成立的常設最高權力機構以及人工智慧研究與卓越中心（CoRE-AI）一致，旨在監督這些工具在技術與倫理上的執行。
Conclusion
The draft regulations are currently open for stakeholder consultation until June 20, pending finalization of the judicial AI governance structure.
該監管草案目前開放利害關係人諮詢至 6 月 20 日，隨後將敲定司法 AI 治理結構。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of 'Institutional Weight': Nominalization and Conceptual Density
To transition from B2 to C2, a student must stop viewing grammar as a set of rules and start viewing it as a tool for conceptual density. This text is a masterclass in Nominalization—the process of turning verbs (actions) and adjectives (qualities) into nouns to create a high-register, objective, and authoritative tone.
⚡ The Pivot: From Process to Entity
Observe how the text avoids simple active phrasing. Instead of saying "The Court wants to regulate how AI is integrated," the author writes:
"...regulatory framework for the Integration of Artificial Intelligence..."
By transforming the action integrate into the noun Integration, the writer shifts the focus from the act of doing to the concept of the system. This is the hallmark of C2 academic and legal English: it treats processes as fixed entities.
🔍 Linguistic Dissection: High-Value Clusters
Look at these specific C2-level clusters and how they function:
- "Human Primacy in Legal Adjudication": Here, primacy (the state of being first/most important) replaces a phrase like "making sure humans are more important than AI." The noun adjudication replaces "the act of judging."
- "Dichotomy between permissible administrative assistance and prohibited adjudicatory functions": This is an extreme example of density. The author establishes a binary (dichotomy) using two complex noun phrases. Notice the adjectives permissible and prohibited acting as precise qualifiers for the nouns.
- "Philosophical positioning on the intersection of technology and sovereignty": Rather than saying "he talked about how technology and sovereignty meet," the author uses positioning and intersection. This creates an intellectual distance that is expected in high-level diplomacy and law.
🛠️ C2 Application Strategy
To replicate this, stop using "action-oriented" sentences when describing complex systems.
B2 approach: We need to make sure that the people in charge are accountable for the mistakes the AI makes. C2 approach: Institutional accountability remains central, stipulating that liability for legal errors vests with the human practitioner.
The shift:
Make sure Accountability (Nominalization)
Mistakes Legal errors (Precision)
Are accountable Liability vests with (Legal Collocation)