In a significant ruling that addresses the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal profession, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order will not be set aside merely because it relies on non-existent citations generated by AI tools, provided the underlying legal principles applied are correct and in accordance with the law.

The court observed that while AI "hallucinations"—where software generates fake or fictitious information—pose a serious risk to the integrity of the justice system, the focus of a superior court should remain on whether the final decision aligns with established legal standards.

The matter arose from a civil suit (O.S. No. 773 of 2019) pending before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge in Vijayawada. The dispute involved a claim for a permanent injunction regarding a property. During the proceedings, the High Court had previously directed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the land and identify if it matched the property descriptions in a specific 1989 sale deed.

Following the survey, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report in July 2025. However, the defendants (petitioners) were dissatisfied. They filed an application (I.A. No. 457 of 2025) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), asking the Trial Court to "strike down" the Commissioner's report. They alleged that the Commissioner had colluded with the plaintiffs, failed to take help from the government surveyor as instructed, and acted beyond the scope of the court's orders.

The Trial Court dismissed the defendants' application, stating that a Commissioner’s report is merely a piece of evidence that can be challenged during the trial and does not need to be "struck down" at an interim stage.

While this logic was sound, the Trial Court judge cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to support the order. When the defendants moved the High Court in a revision petition, their counsel, Sri M. Venkata Siva Teja, made a startling revelation: the citations used by the Trial Court judge did not exist.

Cases with names like "Subramani v. M. Natarajan" and "Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha," which appeared in the Trial Court’s order, were found to be fictitious. They could not be traced in any official law journal or legal database.

Taking note of this serious allegation, the High Court called for a report from the Trial Court judge. In an honest and regretful response, the Judicial Officer admitted that she had used an AI tool for research. She explained that she had acted in "good faith," believing the tool’s output to be accurate, and expressed deep regret for the oversight, promising to be more vigilant in the future.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, presiding over the case, accepted the officer’s explanation but used the judgment to set clear boundaries for the use of technology in courts.

The High Court noted that AI, in its current state, is a tool for "organizing information" rather than "reasoning." The Court emphasized that judicial decision-making requires a "moral reasoning" and an "appreciation of human evidence" that machines simply do not possess.

However, on the question of whether the Trial Court's order should be cancelled because of these fake citations, the High Court adopted a pragmatic approach.

1. The "Correct Principle" Rule

The Court held that the primary duty of a judge is to apply the "Law of the Land." If a judge correctly identifies and applies a legal principle, the fact that they cited a non-existent case as the source of that principle is a "technical error" rather than a "jurisdictional illegality."

Justice Tilhari noted:

"If the principles of law applied are correct... the mere mention of non-existent citations would not vitiate the order. Interference by a higher court is warranted only when the incorrect application of law leads to a miscarriage of justice."

2. The Legal Status of Advocate Commissioner Reports

The High Court then examined whether the Trial Court’s decision to keep the Commissioner’s report on record was legally correct. Referring to Order XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC and genuine Supreme Court precedents (such as Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India), the Court reiterated:

A Commissioner’s report is not "binding" on the court; it is an "aid" to help the court understand the facts on the ground.
The report becomes part of the evidence record automatically.
If a party believes the report is biased or wrong, their remedy is to cross-examine the Commissioner during the trial, not to have the report "deleted" or "struck down" at the beginning.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had correctly applied these established principles. Therefore, despite the embarrassing inclusion of AI-generated fake citations, the decision to dismiss the defendants' application was legally sound.

The judgment serves as a stern warning to the legal community. The High Court highlighted that "AI Hallucinations" can lead to:

Fabrication of Authorities: Creating fake laws and precedents that mislead the court.
Waste of Resources: Forcing the opposing side and the court to spend hours searching for cases that do not exist.
Erosion of Trust: Undermining the public’s confidence in the accuracy of judicial orders.

The Court advised that while AI can assist in summarizing long documents or searching for keywords, every output must be manually verified by a human being.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. It concluded that the defendants' rights were protected because they still have the opportunity to challenge the Advocate Commissioner’s report during the upcoming trial.

This ruling sets a vital precedent: it acknowledges the human fallibility involved in adopting new technology while ensuring that the "substance" of justice is not sacrificed for "errors of form." It sends a clear message to judges and lawyers alike: technology is a helpful servant but a dangerous master.

Case Title: Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari