Here are the preliminary views of Naavi on the draft AI Regulations proposed for Judiciary by the Supreme Court and released for public comments.

Copy of the “Regulations for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts 2026” for public comments

The guideline is a comprehensive document with 57 clauses spread over 10 chapters ready to be converted into a formal law on AI usage.

The chapters are divided into the following:

Chapter I: Preliminary

Chapter II:  General Principles to Govern adoption, deployment and use of AI systems in Courts.

Chapter III: Permissible and Prohibited uses

Chapter IV: Policy Making and Institutional Mechanism

Chapter V: Oversight, Audits and Incident Management

Chapter VI: Procurement and Private Sector Engagement

Chapter VII: Data Protection and Cyber Security

Chapter VIII: Capacity Building, Training and Best Practices

Chapter IX: Grievance redressal and Remedies

Chapter X: Miscellaneous

It is clear from the above that the guidelines are very comprehensive and can be considered as a law by itself. The draft is one of the most comprehensive judicial AI governance frameworks proposed anywhere in the world. It adopts a distinctly Indian approach: AI is welcomed as an assistant to justice, but never as a substitute for judicial reasoning. The framework balances innovation with constitutional safeguards and places human accountability at the centre of all AI-assisted judicial processes.

This will now set the platform for the AI regulations in the country. Whatever regulation which the Government was planning now will have to be re-looked in the eyes of this guideline. Though this guideline at present is restricted to Judiciary it is likely to be considered as an indicative “Due Diligence”. To further formalize this due diligence, Naavi/FDPPI will work on the DGPSI-AI framework and upgrade it to create a version for the non judicial sector compatible to the principles reflected here.

..The debate continues. Watch out for further discussion here.

Naavi

Also Refer: SCO Observer

Copy of the “Regulations for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts 2026” for public comments

The Supreme Court of India has released a notice dated 3rd June 2026 with a copy of the proposed regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 for public comments.

This has been prepared under the aegis of the Artificial Intelligence Committee, Supreme Court of India. These regulations aim to govern the use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, grounded in the principles of human primacy, transparency, accountability, data protection, and judicial independence, while establishing an institutional framework for responsible AI adoption across India’s judicial system.

All stakeholders and the general public are invited to share their comments and suggestions on the said draft regulations through email addressed to Member Secretary, AI Committee, Supreme Court of India at email ID office.regcc@sci.nic.in by 20/06/2026.

Naavi would be consolidating the views of the members of FDPPI and if required submitting the comments.  Please forward your views to naavi.

Current views of naavi would be published here in subsequent articles.

Naavi

(This is a continuation of the series of articles on Independent Data Auditors which emanated from the Event on June 6)

Financial audit professionals have long relied on a system of Peer Review Audits to preserve the integrity, credibility, and quality of the audit profession.

A Peer Review is an independent evaluation of an auditor’s work conducted by qualified professionals who were not involved in the original audit engagement. The objective is not to substitute the judgment of the original auditor, but to assess whether the audit was performed in accordance with accepted standards, regulatory requirements, and established professional practices.

During a peer review, experienced auditors examine the audit methodology, working papers, evidence collection procedures, documentation practices, and reporting conclusions. Such reviews help determine whether the audit process met the expected standards of professional diligence and competence. The process enhances confidence in audit outcomes and promotes continuous improvement within the profession.

In many professions, peer review forms part of a broader quality assurance framework and serves as an important mechanism for maintaining public trust in the audit process.

Peer Review in the FDPPI Framework

As FDPPI develops its framework for DPDPA compliance audits, elements of the peer review concept are being incorporated as a recommended best practice.

Under the FDPPI framework, audit firms may be recognized as Certified Audit Firms for conducting DPDPA audits. Upon completion of an audit, the auditor is expected to submit a Data Trust Score (DTS) report and related audit records. These records may be retained by FDPPI for quality assurance purposes and may be referred for a peer review when circumstances warrant.

Simultaneously, the auditee is encouraged to provide feedback regarding the audit engagement. The availability of inputs from both the auditor and the auditee may occasionally reveal inconsistencies, misunderstandings, or concerns that merit an independent examination. In such situations, FDPPI may recommend a peer review process.

It is important to emphasize that FDPPI does not seek to substitute its judgment for that of the auditor or interfere with the auditor’s professional independence. The purpose of peer review is solely to strengthen the credibility and reliability of the audit ecosystem through constructive quality assurance.

Ethical Foundation

The peer review concept is being proposed as part of the evolving Code of Ethics for Independent Data Auditors under the framework of the Association of Independent Data Auditors of India (AIDAI). These principles may be incorporated into the ethical commitments undertaken by auditors as well as into engagement agreements between auditors and their clients.

At present, these remain voluntary professional standards. Neither FDPPI nor AIDAI possesses statutory authority to enforce such ethical obligations. Their effectiveness therefore depends largely on the willingness of auditors to embrace them as part of their professional responsibility.

Beyond Regulation: The Need for Self-Governance

The long-term strength of any profession depends not merely on external regulation but on the internal values of its practitioners. Ethical conduct becomes meaningful only when it is voluntarily adopted and consistently practiced.

FDPPI therefore urges all empanelled auditors to embrace peer review and similar quality assurance measures as part of a commitment to professional excellence. The objective is not compliance with an external mandate, but the cultivation of a culture of integrity, transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of an Independent Data Auditor is determined not only by technical competence but also by the auditor’s commitment to ethical self-governance. In that sense, the profession requires not merely training and certification, but an “inner engineering” that aligns professional conduct with the larger objective of building trust in the digital ecosystem.

A profession earns public trust not through regulation alone, but through the willingness of its members to hold themselves accountable to standards that are often higher than those imposed by law.

Naavi

(This is in continuation of the previous article)

In the previous article, we discussed the distinction between the objectives of the CISO and the DPO.

The same distinction raises a broader question regarding the independence of DPDPA audits.

If a DPDPA audit is intended not only to assess organizational controls but also to evaluate whether the interests of Data Principals are adequately protected, can management alone determine the scope of the audit?

The Traditional Audit Model

Most governance frameworks recognize the right of management to define the scope of compliance activities.

ISO 27001 follows this approach through the Statement of Applicability.

DGPSI similarly permits management to define implementation boundaries through the Deviation Justification Document.

The rationale is straightforward.

Management bears the business risk and therefore has the right to determine its risk appetite. Risks that are consciously accepted may be mitigated through operational controls, contingency planning, insurance, or other risk-treatment mechanisms.

The Challenge

The problem arises when a management decision affects not only organizational risk but also the rights of Data Principals.

A DPDPA audit is different from a conventional information security audit.

The question is not merely:

“Has the organization managed its risk?”

The question is also:

“Have the interests of Data Principals been reasonably protected?”

An excessively narrow audit scope may therefore conceal significant privacy risks while still appearing acceptable from a management perspective.

The DGPSI Approach

DGPSI addresses this challenge through a structured risk-assessment process.

The auditor is expected to identify risks based on applicable implementation specifications and present these findings to management.

Management may then choose to mitigate, transfer, absorb, or otherwise manage those risks.

Any exclusions or deviations are expected to be documented and justified.

The resulting Data Trust Score (DTS) reflects not only implemented controls but also the residual risks accepted by management.

This approach is comparable to an individual managing health risks through a combination of medication, lifestyle adjustments, emergency medical facilities, and insurance coverage. The risk is not eliminated but consciously managed.

Is Additional Oversight Necessary?

During the discussions, a concern was raised regarding situations in which management may seek to aggressively reduce audit scope by asserting:

“We will deal with the risk if and when it materializes.”

If such decisions significantly affect the interests of Data Principals, should there be an independent validation mechanism?

One suggestion was that the audit scope should be supported by a formal risk assessment and be reviewed by an independent body before the audit proceeds.

The objective would not be to overrule management.

Nor would it be to dictate implementation choices.

The objective would simply be to determine whether the scoping assumptions appear professionally reasonable.

A Possible Role for Audit Quality Control

DGPSI currently contemplates a quality-control mechanism under which completed audits may be reviewed by an FDPPI quality committee if significant concerns arise.

A similar concept could potentially be applied at the scoping stage.

Under such an approach, an auditor may voluntarily submit the risk assessment and proposed scoping document to an Audit Quality Control Committee for validation of the underlying assumptions.

The committee would not certify compliance, approve the audit, or interfere with auditor independence.

Its role would be limited to examining whether significant exclusions have been adequately justified.

Conclusion

As India develops professional standards for Independent Data Auditors under DPDPA, the industry must address an important question:

Can an audit remain truly independent if its scope is entirely determined by management?

The answer is unlikely to be straightforward.

Management must retain the right to determine business priorities and risk appetite. At the same time, DPDPA compliance requires recognition of interests that extend beyond the organization itself.

The suggestions discussed here are exploratory and intended to stimulate professional debate. FDPPI and AIDAI are in the process of developing ethical and professional standards for DPDPA audits, and practitioner feedback will play an important role in shaping these standards.

The objective is not to prescribe answers but to encourage the development of a robust and credible audit ecosystem for India’s emerging data protection framework.

Naavi

(This  is a continuation of the previous article)

During recent discussions on the role of Independent Data Auditors, an interesting debate emerged regarding whether a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) can effectively discharge the responsibilities of a Data Protection Officer (DPO).

The debate raises a more fundamental question: Do the objectives of the CISO and the DPO naturally converge?

Many organizations assume that they do because both functions deal with information. A closer examination, however, suggests that their primary objectives are significantly different.

The Objective of the CISO

The CISO is fundamentally responsible for protecting the organization’s information assets.

Traditionally this responsibility is expressed through the principles of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA). The CISO seeks to ensure that information is accessible only to authorized persons, remains accurate and trustworthy, and is available when required.

The security architecture, access controls, monitoring mechanisms, logging systems, and incident response frameworks are all designed to support the business objectives of the organization.

The CISO therefore operates primarily from the perspective of organizational risk.

The Objective of the DPO

The DPO operates under a different mandate.

The DPO’s role originates from law rather than from business necessity. Under DPDPA 2023, the processing of personal data is expected to be aligned with the rights of the Data Principal, except in situations specifically exempted by law.

Questions such as:

• • Who may access personal data?
  • For what purpose?
  • For how long?
  • Under what authority?
  • Subject to what rights of correction, access, grievance, or nomination?

are driven not merely by organizational convenience but by the rights recognized under law.

While the DPO is appointed and compensated by the Data Fiduciary, the essence of the role is to ensure that the interests of the Data Principal are respected.

Where the Conflict Arises

The management of an organization naturally seeks to maximize business value from information assets available to it, including customer information wherever legally permissible.

The CISO supports this objective by ensuring that information remains secure and usable.

The DPO, however, must ask a different question.

Not “Can we use this data securely?”

but

“Should we be using this data at all?”

This distinction creates an inherent tension.

A security professional may advocate longer retention periods to support forensic investigations.

A privacy professional may advocate deletion once the original purpose is exhausted.

A security team may seek extensive monitoring to detect insider threats.

A DPO may question whether such monitoring is proportionate and necessary.

The conflict is not accidental. It is built into the governance framework.

Why DPDPA Recognizes Both Perspectives

DPDPA acknowledges that information security is essential and therefore recognizes several legitimate-use situations where security interests may justify processing.

However, the Act does not subordinate privacy rights to security objectives.

Instead, it attempts to balance both interests.

This balancing exercise requires an independent voice within the organization that is capable of representing the perspective of the Data Principal.

Conclusion

The most mature organizations recognize that the CISO and DPO are not substitutes for one another.

The CISO is the guardian of information assets.

The DPO is the guardian of privacy rights.

The Board must balance both perspectives.

When disagreements arise between the two functions, it is often evidence that the governance system is functioning properly. The tension between security and privacy is not a weakness. It is an essential mechanism for ensuring that organizational objectives do not inadvertently override the rights of individuals.

The next question that naturally follows is whether a similar tension should also be reflected in the DPDPA audit process itself.

Naavi