June was a month of structural change more than dramatic verdicts. The courts reshaped their own composition, drew rules around new technology, and continued working through questions that did not exist a decade ago.
Supreme Court Proposes First AI Rules for Courts
On 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court released the draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026, and invited public comment until 20 June. The framework permits AI for research, drafting, translation and transcription, but prohibits it from deciding cases, assessing bail risk, profiling behaviour, or predicting outcomes as a basis for judgment. It also proposes disclosure obligations for lawyers who use AI in filings. The rules follow a year in which courts repeatedly caught fabricated, AI-generated citations in submissions. The significance is straightforward: the judiciary is choosing supervision over prohibition, while insisting that decisions remain human.
Three New Judges Take Oath at the Supreme Court
On 2 June 2026, the Supreme Court welcomed new judges, including Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, each elevated after serving as a High Court Chief Justice. The appointments come during the tenure of Chief Justice Surya Kant, the 53rd CJI, who took office in November 2025 and is due to retire in February 2027. With several retirements scheduled through 2026, the composition of the Court and its Collegium will keep shifting through the year. For litigants, the practical effect is felt in bench strength and the pace at which pending matters, which number in the tens of thousands, can be heard.
Fake-Citation Case Continues Before the Supreme Court
The suo motu matter on AI-generated fake precedents, in which the Supreme Court declared in February that citing fabricated judgments amounts to misconduct, remained live through the period, with the Court continuing to examine accountability for lawyers and judicial officers and the role of the Bar Council. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan is assisting as amicus curiae. The case is shaping the professional standard that will sit underneath the new AI rules: the person who files is responsible for what is filed, regardless of which tool produced it.
Supreme Court Plea Seeks Quota for Women Lawyers Continues to Draw Attention
The petition seeking thirty percent reservation for women lawyers in public sector legal panels, law officer posts and government legal representation remained part of the national conversation around representation. The plea argues that despite rising participation by women in the profession, their presence in institutional legal positions stays disproportionately low. The matter connects the broader debate on women’s representation to the specific question of who gets access to government-linked legal work.
Live-In Relationship Questions Stay Before the Courts
Courts continued to work through the boundaries of live-in relationships. The settled position from earlier rulings holds that consensual relationships between adults fall within the protection of personal liberty under Article 21. At the same time, courts have declined to extend that protection to relationships that cut across an existing marriage. The distinction being drawn is consistent: constitutional protection for adult autonomy on one side, and the limits set by existing matrimonial obligations on the other.