The Bridge

This month, we’ve been thinking about the Supreme Court’s sixteen-paragraph detour into economic policy; who gets to make the rules for using AI in courts; the empty legal-member seats at energy sector regulators; and the tribunal that has stopped hearing appeals involving Maharashtra’s electricity regulator.

In July 2026, the Supreme Court remanded a matter to the NCLT after finding that the judgment relied on made up cases, incorrect citations and invented paragraphs. In this video, TrustBridge researcher Natasha Aggarwal looks at what adjudicatory institutions can do to reduce the risk of such errors through training, process guidance and technical safeguards.

On 9 September 2026, the Chairperson and two members of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) were appointed, following a Supreme Court order in May 2026 directing timely appointments. Before this, the position of legal member had remained vacant for over a year, during which the Commission could not hear adjudicatory matters. This is not […]

Is the CCI following the standards set by the Supreme Court in CCI v. SAIL? In its 2010 judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that final adjudicative orders passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) must be speaking orders and demonstrate application of mind. We tested these standards against a recent Section 26(2) […]

This month: how the CCI makes some of its decisions, the court that trusted a chatbot a little too much, whether the Supreme Court should get involved in pricing your air ticket, and why regulators keep getting told to “apply their minds.”

Can LLMs benchmark a legal order as accurately as a human lawyer? We decided to test it: we put Claude head-to-head against a human to review an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India against the Good Order Writing indicators. While they agreed on most of their responses, their disagreements mainly stemmed […]