The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has told the city police to find out who prepared an AI-Generated Marksheet that reached the Bench in a marriage protection plea, with an inquiry officer to be appointed within a week and a report due four weeks after that.
Lucknow: Two high school marksheets carrying different dates of birth and different certificate numbers have led the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow to direct the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to inquire into who prepared a forged document that appeared to have been generated using Artificial Intelligence, an AI-Generated Marksheet produced before the Court in a couple’s plea alleging police harassment over their marriage [Neha Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the order on September 25, 2026, and listed the matter on November 12.
What the Bench has ordered
The Commissioner of Police must appoint the inquiry officer within one week. That officer is to conduct a detailed inquiry, including on the spot, and submit a report within four weeks thereafter indicating the involvement or complicity of the persons who prepared the forged document. Both petitioners, the Arya Samaj Secretary and the priest have been directed to remain present before the inquiry officer whenever required.
The observations are prima facie, and no finding has been recorded against any individual on who prepared the document.
How the mismatch surfaced
The writ petition was filed by Neha Pandey and her husband, petitioner No. 2, who said the police were harassing them over their marriage, solemnised at an Arya Samaj temple in Lucknow on September 4, 2026. During the hearing, the Bench noticed that petitioner No. 2’s date of birth did not match across documents: the high school marksheet annexed to the petition recorded July 29, 2006, while the Arya Samaj’s marriage certificate recorded July 29, 2005.
The Court summoned the Secretary of the Arya Samaj, Sector Q, Aliganj, Lucknow, and the priest who solemnised the marriage, along with their records. On September 22, the Secretary produced a high school marksheet which, he said, petitioner No. 2 had furnished for the marriage.
Set beside the marksheet filed with the petition, it differed in the date of birth and the certificate numbers. The transcript on the petition’s copy was in Hindi; the one produced by the Secretary was in a language that was neither Hindi nor Sanskrit. The documents and the register were ordered to be kept in a sealed cover, and the petitioners were directed to appear in person. When he did, petitioner No. 2 said he had supplied a copy of his original marksheet, which recorded his date of birth as July 29, 2006.
“Fruit of poisonous tree”
Reading the certificate from the Arya Samaj Secretary, the Bench said it was prima facie enough to infer that it had been manipulated and appeared to have been prepared using Artificial Intelligence, which is why the Hindi transcript was missing. Expressing surprise that such a document had reached the High Court, it described it as a “fruit of poisonous tree”.
There was also a point of logic. If petitioner No. 2 had in fact supplied the manipulated marksheet to the Arya Samaj, there would have been no occasion for him to file his original marksheet with the petition. The Court held that the question needed an inquiry:
“…preparation of forged and manipulated marks-sheet indicating the age of petitioner No.2 as 29.07.2005 has become a riddle and same has been filed in the Court proceeding before the Court, therefore, this Court cannot sit over the matter being a serious concern and same should be answered in appropriate manner.”
The Bench added:
“Producing a manipulated, forged and AI generated document before the Court tends not only in order to tarnish the dignity of the institution but also shake of trust of a litigant and to affect adversely the justice dispensation system.”
Why the order matters
Age records sit at the heart of marriage and protection petitions, and courts routinely rely on school certificates to decide whether parties are adults. A document that looks genuine at a glance but has been produced or altered with AI tools can mislead a court on exactly that point. By ordering a senior-level police inquiry instead of simply noting the discrepancy, the Bench has signalled that AI-assisted forgery of records filed in court will be traced to its source.
The order also shows how a careful comparison of two copies of the same certificate, down to certificate numbers and the language of the transcript, exposed the manipulation. As generative tools become easier to use, the ruling is a reminder to litigants, marriage registrars and solemnising bodies that the documents they accept and pass on may face close scrutiny.
Case Title: Neha Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others
Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: September 25, 2026
Next Date: November 12, 2026