SCAORA Advocates Against Mandatory AI Disclosure for Lawyers in Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has voiced its opposition to a proposed regulation that would require lawyers to disclose their use of artificial intelligence (AI) in preparing legal documents. This recommendation comes as part of their feedback on the Supreme Court’s Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, slated for implementation in 2026.

Contents

Current Legal Framework

According to SCAORA, the existing legal framework, which includes the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, already holds advocates accountable for the accuracy of their filings. Therefore, an additional requirement for AI disclosure is deemed redundant and burdensome.

Draft Regulations and SCAORA’s Concerns

The Supreme Court’s draft regulations, developed by the AI Committee, aim to establish a comprehensive framework for AI usage across various judicial entities, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals. While these regulations permit AI-assisted tasks such as legal research and case management, they also mandate disclosure of AI usage in legal document preparation. SCAORA argues that such a disclosure could be impractical and might unfairly impact litigants or sway judicial opinions.

The Association suggests an alternative: amending the Special Leave Petition certificate to ensure advocates verify all legal citations and precedents personally.

Phased Implementation

In its feedback, SCAORA supports a cautious and phased introduction of AI technologies in the judicial system, advocating for rigorous safeguards before AI is used in areas that directly affect litigants’ rights. The Association emphasizes the need for a cautious approach over a focus on innovation, citing risks such as automation bias and the opaque nature of AI systems.

Inclusion of Legal Practitioners

SCAORA also highlights the exclusion of practising advocates from the governance framework outlined in the draft regulations, despite their significant role in the judicial system. They recommend including the SCAORA President or a nominee as an ex-officio member of the Apex Body and advocate for broader representation on various committees.

The Association criticizes the proposed governance structure as overly bureaucratic, pointing to overlapping committees and approval processes.

Data Protection and AI Audits

SCAORA expresses concerns about data protection and calls for audits of existing AI systems used by the Supreme Court, such as SUPACE and SUVAS, before the new framework becomes operational. They seek clearer definitions of terms like “Court Data” and “High-Risk AI Tools” to ensure AI remains an assistive tool, with final decisions resting with human judges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s draft regulations allow AI for tasks like legal research and transcription but prohibit its use in decision-making roles. The Court has invited further comments and suggestions before finalizing the regulatory framework.