Imagine this: AI helping judges sift through case files, scheduling hearings, even drafting routine orders; all while being 100% under human control. That’s the vision. But here’s the catch: AI can hallucinate, leak data, or make biased calls. So the Draft doesn’t just allow AI; it chains it to the Constitution, the DPDP Act, and the IT Act. No black boxes. No hidden algorithms. Every AI decision must be explainable. And if it messes up? The court, not the machine, is accountable. What’s interesting is how it borrows from existing laws; like data minimisation (only collect what’s necessary) and cybersecurity audits. Even the definition of ‘data’ and ‘cybersecurity’ is pulled straight from the DPDP Act and IT Act. This isn’t just about tech. It’s about trust. Can we let machines touch justice without risking privacy, fairness, or human judgment? The answer, for now, is a very careful ‘yes’; with guardrails. And that’s what makes this draft one of the most consequential legal documents you’ve probably never heard of.