Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court of India flagged serious concerns over a trial court’s AI-generated judgment citing non-existent precedents. Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe termed it an institutional issue, issuing notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has expressed serious concerns about a Trial Court’s use of AI-generated judgments, observing that such reliance strikes at the integrity of the adjudicatory process. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that a trial court decision founded on fabricated, non-existent judgments could not be treated merely as an error in judgment.
While issuing notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India, the bench said,
“This case assumes considerable institutional concern, not because of the decision that was taken on the merits of the case, but about the process of adjudication and determination,”
Factual Backgrounds:
In the matter before the Court, the petitioners were defendants in a suit brought by the respondents seeking an injunction. While the suit was pending, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the property’s physical features.
The petitioners filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report. The Trial Court set aside those objections and, in doing so, relied on the decisions of Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95; Ramasamy (1971) 2 SCC 68, Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551; and Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223.
Challenging the Trial Court’s orders, the petitioners contended that the precedents cited were non-existent and fabricated. The High Court examined this objection, found that the judgments had been generated by Artificial Intelligence, issued a cautionary remark, but ultimately decided the matter on its merits and dismissed the civil revision petition, thereby upholding the Trial Court’s order. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
Issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition and listing the matter for March 10, 2026, the Supreme Court directed that the Trial Court must not act on the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
Also Read: Will AI Replace Lawyers? The Future of AI in Law and Legal Practice
The bench ordered,
“We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process. At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow. It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail. Issue notice to the Ld. Attorney General, Ld. Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India. We appoint Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, to assist the Court. He may nominate an Advocate on Record for his assistance,”
Remarks of Other SC Judges on AI generated Judgments:
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
Separately, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has also flagged the expanding use of AI in drafting legal documents, citing instances where lawyers relied on judgments or quotations later found to be fictitious.
CJI Kant remarked during a hearing,
“We have been alarmingly told that some lawyers have started using AI for drafting,”
In October, while delivering a keynote address on “Technology in the Aid of the Legal Profession – A Global Perspective” at the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s annual conference, Justice Surya Kant cautioned that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace lawyers or judges, and that justice remains fundamentally human.
Warning against excessive reliance on AI, he said,
“Artificial intelligence may assist in researching authorities, generating drafts, or highlighting inconsistencies, but it cannot perceive the tremor in a witness’s voice, the anguish behind a petition, or the moral weight of a decision. Let us be crystal clear: we are not replacing the lawyer or the judge, we are simply augmenting their reach and refining their capacity to serve. Let technology be the guide and the human govern,”
Also Read: “AI For All”: Centre Introducing Legislation To Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Justice B V Nagarathna:
Justice Nagarathna recalled a cited fictitious decision, saying,
“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist”.
She also pointed out occasions where genuine Supreme Court decisions were cited but the passages quoted did not appear in the actual judgments.
Last month the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest petition filed by Kartikeya Rawal seeking regulation of AI in the judiciary. The PIL had warned about the misuse of AI in fabricating cases and sought formal guidelines for judicial adoption of AI.
During that hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that the judiciary already uses AI with caution, pointing to training initiatives at judicial academies and lessons from the Kerala High Court’s structured use of AI, and described the matter as a learning opportunity for both the bar and the bench.
Case Title: Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES