I Have Done My Bit. Two Suggestions Shared with the Supreme Court AI Committee on the Draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026”

 Published 15 June 2026

By Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

 

Disclaimer

Another small step in my journey of engaging with technology-enabled public systems and Digital Transactions Day (April 11).

I Have Done My Bit.

On June 14, 2026, I submitted two suggestions to the AI Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in response to the draft “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026”.

I am neither an AI expert nor a legal expert. I approached the draft as a citizen stakeholder with an interest in digital governance, technology-enabled public systems and digital transactions.

What made this consultation interesting for me was not merely the submission itself, but the journey that led to it.

When I first came across the draft regulations, my understanding of Artificial Intelligence in the judicial system was limited. My immediate reaction was not to write suggestions, but to read, understand and learn.

The first few days were spent simply trying to understand the institutional architecture proposed in the draft. The Apex Body, Committees, AI Secretariats and the Centre of Research and Excellence on Artificial Intelligence (CoRE-AI) all appeared interconnected, and it took time to appreciate how the different components were intended to work together.

Initially, I found myself drawn towards operational questions. Who would coordinate such a large framework? How would continuity be maintained? How would different entities remain aligned over time?

Those questions eventually evolved into what became Suggestion A. The suggestion was not about changing the composition of the Apex Body. Instead, it focused on institutional continuity, executive coordination and the importance of clearly articulated support structures in a governance framework that is expected to operate for many years.

The second suggestion followed a very different path.

At first, I was thinking about locations, organisational structures and possible models for CoRE-AI. However, as I continued reading Regulation 32(3), I realised that the more important question was not where CoRE-AI would be located, but what CoRE-AI was being asked to become.

That shift in perspective proved to be important.

A close reading of the regulation suggested that CoRE-AI was being entrusted with seven distinct institutional missions, ranging from research and evaluation to governance support, monitoring, legal studies and knowledge dissemination.

Once that became clear, the focus shifted from physical infrastructure to institutional design. The resulting suggestion invited reflection on whether different missions might, over time, benefit from specialised expertise while remaining part of a unified governance framework.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the process was the learning itself.

The consultation encouraged me to think beyond my familiar areas of banking and digital transactions and to explore how emerging technologies may interact with one of the most important public institutions in a democracy—the justice delivery system.

Whether the suggestions are accepted, modified or not adopted at all is entirely for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide.

For me, the more important outcome is that I participated.

I read the draft.

I reflected on it.

I learned from it.

And I contributed in the small way that I could.

I have done my bit.

The rest is for the future to decide.

The Joy of Digital Transactions

Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Digital Transactions Day (April 11)

 

Author’s Blogs

https://prashantrandomthoughts.blogspot.com
https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com