Delhi High Court permits Greenopolis Welfare Association to withdraw petition after it was found to cite fabricated and non-existent judgments. The case raises concerns over AI-generated content in legal filings.
New Delhi: In what appears to be one of the first cases of alleged “AI hallucination” surfacing in the Indian judiciary, the Delhi High Court saw a petition being withdrawn after it was revealed that the plea relied on fabricated case law and non-existent judicial precedents.
The petition was filed by the Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) before a single-judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia. GWA had challenged the orders of the trial court that had restricted it from filing its written statement while allowing pleas from various homebuyers.
During the proceedings, the respondents, who were homebuyers represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Abhijat, and Sanjay Ghose, produced a compilation of documents pointing out that the GWA’s petition cited false and fabricated case law.
One of the references questioned was Chitra Narain v. DDA, 2000 (87) DLT 276, which the respondents noted does not exist.
The petition also cited paragraphs 73 and 74 of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC 850, despite the judgment having only 27 paragraphs.
Confronted with these discrepancies, the senior counsel representing the petitioner requested permission to withdraw the plea.
The Court allowed the withdrawal, observing,
“Petitioner has assailed orders dated 18.09.2025, 20.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 of the learned trial court. However, after addressing partly, learned senior counsel for petitioner on instructions seeks permission to withdraw this petition.”
Highlighting the non-existent citations, the Court further stated,
“All learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for respondents submit that they would take appropriate steps since some of the judicial precedents cited on behalf of petitioner do not even exist and in some of the precedents, the quoted portions do not exist. At the request of both sides, it is made clear that submissions advanced today were confined only to the impugned orders and nothing else.”
Following this, the petition and the accompanying applications were formally dismissed as withdrawn.
For the petitioners, the bench noted the representation by Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav Kohli and Mr. Ashish, Advocates.
For the respondents, the representation was by Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara N., Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla and Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Advocates for respondents 1 to 15.
Additionally, Mr. N. Hariharan and Mr. Abhijat, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal and Mr. Jai Sikand, Advocates appeared for respondents 1 (plaintiffs 1 to 4), Mr. Sanjoy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Jai Sikand and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal for respondents 1 (plaintiffs 5 to 19), Mr. Neeraj Dev Gaur, Advocate for respondents 1 (plaintiffs 20 & 21), and Mr. Tushar Sannu and Ms. Shaoni Das, Advocates for respondents 21 & 22.
This unusual case highlights the increasing concern around the reliance on AI-generated content in legal filings.
Allegations of fabricated case law and misquoted judgments can have serious consequences in courts, and the GWA petition serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals to carefully verify all legal citations before filing petitions in the judiciary.
Case Title:
GREENOPOLIS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (GWA) vs NARENDER SINGH AND ORS
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on AI-Generated Case Law
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
