The Supreme Court’s 2026 draft regulations don’t just allow AI in courtrooms; they demand lawyers to declare if they’ve used it to draft pleadings. Imagine a lawyer standing before the bench and saying, “Your Honour, this argument was co-written by an AI.” That’s now mandatory under Regulation 3. But here’s the twist; the Bar Association is furious, calling it a trust killer. Why? Because they fear judges might start questioning the credibility of AI-assisted arguments; even when the lawyer did everything right. The real story? It’s not about AI replacing judges. No; Regulation 4 makes it crystal clear: AI can help prepare files, sort cases, and pull case law, but never decide them. The human judge must always be in charge. And if the AI hallucinates; yes, that’s now a legal term; the lawyer is still responsible. Even for errors made by a ‘black box’ algorithm. Plus, every high-risk AI tool must include “Human-in-the-Loop” oversight; meaning a real person must double-check every critical call. What’s more, there’s now a formal system to audit AI for bias; checking if algorithms are secretly favouring certain genders, castes or regions. So while AI may speed up court processes, the system is forcing it to bend to justice, not the other way around. This isn’t the future of law. It’s the new normal; starting now.