New Delhi: In a startling observation that highlights the dark side of legal tech, the Supreme Court has expressed deep concern over the rising trend of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to create fabricated evidence in matrimonial disputes. The Court noted that in the race to "teach the other side a lesson," estranged couples are resorting to sophisticated digital forgery, making false allegations "rampant" in family courts.
The Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, made these remarks while exercising its powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage that had been dead for over 13 years. The couple in question had filed over 40 legal proceedings against each other despite living together for only 65 days.
While dealing with the complexities of the case (Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar), Justice Rajesh Bindal, writing for the Bench, observed that the preparation for a legal battle often begins the moment differences arise. The focus shifts from reconciliation to destruction, with technology acting as a force multiplier for vindictiveness.
"Evidence is collected and, in some cases, even created, which is more often in the era of artificial intelligence. False allegations are rampant."
This observation serves as a judicial wake-up call regarding the admissibility and verification of electronic evidence in divorce cases, where deepfakes and doctored chats could potentially ruin reputations and sway verdicts.
Beyond the technological warning, the Court heavily criticized the tendency of couples to weaponize the police machinery at the drop of a hat. The Bench advised that the first step in any matrimonial dispute—whether it involves maintenance or domestic violence allegations—should always be pre-litigation mediation.
The Court stated that filing complaints at police stations should be the last resort, as arrests often lead to a "point of no return." Instead, lawyers and courts must prioritize counseling and mediation centers to cool tempers before they turn into decade-long legal wars.
The specific case before the Court was a textbook example of "legal terrorism." Married in 2012, the couple spent the next decade fighting cases ranging from Section 498A (cruelty) and maintenance to perjury and execution petitions across multiple states. The Court noted that such "warring couples cannot make courts their battlefield" and dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, aiming to put an end to their mutual misery.
The Supreme Court's recognition of AI-generated evidence is a pivotal moment for Indian jurisprudence. It signals that courts must now be hyper-vigilant when electronic records (WhatsApp chats, audio recordings, videos) are presented in family disputes. For lawyers and litigants, the message is clear: the judiciary is aware of digital manipulation, and the "evidence" you generate might just end up being scrutinized for an AI footprint.