Supreme Court Takes Note Of Use Of Fake AI-Generated Precedents In Trial Court Judgments; Warns Of "Misconduct" And "Legal Consequences"

The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of a Trial Court’s reliance on "non-existent, fake, or synthetic" judgments generated by Artificial Intelligence.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition assailing the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which realized that the judgments are Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated, and after recording a word of caution, proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition, affirming the decision of the Trial Court. 

The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, "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."

AOR Sindoora Vnl appeared for the Petitioners.

The petitioners were the Defendants in a suit filed by the Respondents for an injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property. The petitioners challenged the report of the Advocate Commissioner by raising certain objections. The Trial Court, by its order, dismissed the objection and, in the process, relied on certain decisions.

The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Trial Court, inter alia, contending that the judgments referred to and relied on are non-existent and fake orders.

The High Court had observed, "This Court considers it appropriate in the context of the present case, to address, briefly, the issue of the use of AI in judgments...The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), in its present stage of development, may function only as a tool capable of assisting in tasks such as organising information and summarizing records. It does not possess consciousness, moral reasoning, or the capacity to weigh evidence, or appreciate the nuances of human conduct."

The High Court also said, "This highlights the risks involved in relying on AI tools without meaningful human oversight to verify the accuracy of the assertions they generate. The people who employ AI for legal research should rigorously scrutinize its outputs, including the authorities cited. Such tools may lack access to the complete body of relevant law, may not fully comprehend the query posed, or may overlook material authorities. In such circumstances, AI systems can produce responses that appear persuasive yet are factually or legally incorrect. More concerningly, they may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration."

The High Court had said that although AI tools can be beneficial, their unregulated use may give rise to serious concerns, including violations of privacy and damage to confidence and trust in the judicial decision-making and the judicial verdict.

The High Court had ordered, "Therefore, in the view of this Court, the exercise of actual intelligence over artificial intelligence should be preferred and the use of Artificial Intelligence should be done with great care, caution and wisdom. The learned Trial Courts while using the Artificial Intelligence tools in judgments shall remain vigilant cautious and act with judicial application of mind to make just decision ensuring that the judgments/orders are based on correct legal principles."

The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and ordered, "Issue notice, returnable on 10.03.2026...Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition, we direct that the Trial Court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s Report...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."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed on March 10, 2026.

Cause Title: Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. [SLP (C) No. 7575 of 2026] 

Appearances:

Petitioner: AOR Sindoora Vnl and Advocate Thithiksha Padmam.

Click here to read/download the order