New Delhi: In a development that has sent shockwaves through the Indian legal fraternity, the Supreme Court of India has taken a very stern view of a trial court relying on "fictitious and non-existent" judgments generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). The apex court observed that such actions strike at the very heart of the judicial process and cannot be brushed aside as a simple mistake. Instead, the Court has categorized it as "misconduct" that warrants serious legal consequences.

The Bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, made these observations while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) arising from a property dispute in Andhra Pradesh.

The case began in a trial court in Andhra Pradesh. During the proceedings of a civil suit related to a property dispute, the court had appointed an "Advocate Commissioner" to inspect the property and submit a report on its physical features. The defendants in the case raised several objections to this report.

In August 2025, the trial court dismissed these objections. However, what caught everyone’s attention was the reasoning provided in the order. To support its decision, the trial court cited four specific case laws:

Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95
Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68
Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551
Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223

When the aggrieved parties tried to look up these cases to understand the precedents, they were met with a blank wall. None of these judgments existed in any official legal database, whether it was SCC Online, Manupatra, or the Supreme Court’s own record system. They were entirely "synthetic" or "hallucinated" results produced by an AI tool used by the court or its staff.

The matter first reached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court acknowledged that the citations used by the trial judge were indeed fake and AI-generated. While the High Court issued a "word of caution" regarding the unregulated use of AI in legal research, it ultimately decided to dismiss the petition on its merits, affirming the trial court's final decision.

Unsatisfied with this, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court, arguing that a judicial order based on "imaginary" law is fundamentally flawed and undermines the integrity of the institution.

When the matter came up before the Supreme Court on February 27, 2026, the Bench expressed deep alarm. Justice Narasimha pointed out that the issue was not just about whether the final decision was right or wrong on merits, but about the "purity of the process."

The Court stated in no uncertain terms:

"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."

The Court emphasized that while an "error of law" happens when a judge interprets an existing law incorrectly, citing a law that doesn't exist at all is a failure of the judge's basic duty to verify facts. This, the Court noted, has a "direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process."

The Supreme Court has decided to turn this into a larger examination of how AI is being used in Indian courts. The Bench noted that this case assumes "considerable institutional concern."

To assist in this significant inquiry, the Court has:

Issued Notices: The Court has sought responses from the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General, and the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Appointed Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court as an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) to examine the consequences and fix accountability for such lapses.
Stayed Proceedings: The Supreme Court has directed the trial court not to proceed further based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report while it examines the larger issue.

This incident highlights a growing global problem known as "AI Hallucination." Generative AI models (like ChatGPT or similar legal AI tools) are designed to predict the next word in a sentence. Sometimes, in an attempt to be helpful, they "hallucinate" or invent citations that look incredibly real—complete with volume numbers, page numbers, and realistic-sounding party names—but are entirely fake.

Earlier in February 2026, a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant also expressed alarm over lawyers using AI to draft petitions. In one instance, a lawyer cited a fictional judgment titled "Mercy vs Mankind." Justice BV Nagarathna had remarked that such fake quotes make the judges' task significantly harder, as they must now verify the very existence of every paragraph quoted.

The Supreme Court’s stance is a clear warning: technology should be a tool for assistance, not a replacement for judicial mind. The ruling sets a precedent that:

Judges must verify: It is the personal responsibility of the judicial officer to ensure that every citation in their order is authentic.
Accountability is key: Using unverified AI outputs in a judgment can lead to disciplinary action or "misconduct" proceedings.
Need for Guidelines: The involvement of the Bar Council of India suggests that we might soon see a formal set of rules or a "Code of Conduct" for using AI in legal research and drafting.

The Supreme Court's intervention is a watershed moment. While India has been a leader in adopting technology—with projects like SUVAS (for translation) and SUPACE (for research assistance)—this case serves as a reality check. The credibility of the judiciary rests on the "Rule of Law," and there can be no rule of law if the "laws" being cited are figments of a machine's imagination.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 10, 2026, where the court is expected to delve deeper into the accountability mechanisms for "AI-generated misconduct."