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."