Recent judicial observations, including in SLP(C) 7575/2026 (27 February 2026) and the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and the Judiciary (November 2025), have drawn attention to the use of AI-generated material in legal proceedings and its implications for professional responsibility.
This page hosts the Declaration of Principles, the Operational Framework Annex, and the supporting analysis examining the cognitive mechanisms by which AI-generated output can suppress the independent verification that professional obligations require.
The principles articulated herein reflect the application of existing duties of diligence, verification, and independent judgment in the context of AI-assisted work. They do not propose new obligations but articulate the structured application of established professional standards to current technological conditions.
Documents
Declaration + Framework Annex
Declaration on Responsible AI Use in Indian Legal Practice
Part I: Six principles governing AI-assisted legal practice. Part II: Operational Framework Annex containing the Supervised Intelligence Method (SIM), Accountability Reference Template (ART), verification protocol, and sample compliance clause.
White Paper
System 1 Lawyering: The Cognitive Risk of AI-Assisted Legal Work and the Necessity of Structured Supervision
Examines the cognitive mechanisms — fluency-validity substitution, anchoring, coherence bias, and effort substitution — by which AI-generated legal content suppresses the independent verification that professional obligations demand. Maps each mechanism to documented judicial findings from Indian courts in 2025–2026.
Declaration of Principles
Principle 1
Presumptive Status of AI Output
All AI-generated content shall be treated as presumptively unverified and unreliable until subjected to independent human verification against primary sources.
Principle 2
Non-Delegable Authorship Responsibility
The advocate bears complete and non-delegable authorship responsibility for every submission, argument, and citation filed or relied upon in any proceeding.
Principle 3
Mandatory Independent Verification
Verification of citations, statutory provisions, and legal analysis constitutes a core professional duty that cannot be outsourced to any technological system or platform.
Principle 4
Platform Independence
Professional standards governing the use of artificial intelligence apply uniformly across all tools and models and are not tied to the features or verification mechanisms of any specific platform.
Principle 5
Preservation of Professional Judgment
All strategic, doctrinal, and tactical judgments must remain the product of the advocate's independent analysis. AI systems may assist in research or drafting but cannot substitute for the advocate's cognitive engagement.
Principle 6
Disclosure and Structured Supervision
Where the use of artificial intelligence is material to the preparation of a submission, the advocate may disclose such use and confirm compliance with a structured supervisory protocol ensuring independent verification and judgment at every material stage.
Supervised Intelligence Method (SIM)
01
Legal Framing
Human Only
The advocate alone defines the legal question and analytical framework before any AI system is engaged.
02
Pattern Expansion
AI-Assisted
AI generates candidate materials within the advocate's frame. All output is designated presumptively unverified.
03
Doctrinal Reconstruction
Human-Dominant
The advocate reconstructs the argument from independent analysis. The advocate's framework must control the final submission.
04
Verification
Human Only
Every citation and statutory provision independently located and read in the primary source. Partial verification does not satisfy this obligation.
05
Strategic Judgment
Human Only
All decisions on which arguments to advance, how to sequence them, and what concessions to make remain exclusively with the advocate.
Sample AI Usage Declaration Clause
"The undersigned advocate certifies that (a) artificial intelligence was used in the research and drafting stage of this submission, (b) all AI-generated content has been subjected to independent verification in accordance with the Declaration on Responsible AI Use in Indian Legal Practice dated March 2026, and (c) the advocate accepts full authorship responsibility for the final content."
Judicial Context
Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao
SLP(C) 7575/2026 · Supreme Court of India · 27 February 2026
Trial court judge used AI to draft a judicial order citing four non-existent judgments. Supreme Court held this constitutes misconduct.
Deepak Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment
2026:BHC-AS:828 · Bombay High Court · 7 January 2026
Costs imposed for AI-generated submissions with fabricated citations. Verification failure recorded as professional conduct failure.
Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. Federal Bank
WP(C) 43123/2025 · Kerala High Court · 10 December 2025
Court observed AI-generated writ petitions with absent material facts. Advocates unable to answer questions about their own pleadings.
Supreme Court White Paper on AI and the Judiciary
November 2025
First institutional acknowledgment of AI's impact on judicial administration. Identified governance gap. Did not produce a professional standard for advocates.