The Supreme Court has warned of possible legal consequences after discovering that a judge relied on fake, AI-generated case citations while deciding a property dispute in Andhra Pradesh.
Taking serious note of the issue, the apex court said the matter raised an “institutional concern” as the use of fabricated AI-generated judgments had a direct bearing on the integrity of the judicial decision-making process.
The controversy arose from an order passed in August last year by a junior civil judge in Vijayawada while dealing with a dispute over a piece of property. In the case, the trial court had earlier appointed an official to conduct a survey of the disputed property and submit a report. When the defendants objected to the survey, the judge dismissed their objection while citing four previous judicial precedents.
However, it later emerged that all four cited judgments were non-existent and had apparently been generated using artificial intelligence.
The defendants challenged the order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, pointing out that the precedents relied upon by the trial court did not exist. While the High Court acknowledged that the citations were fabricated, it held that the mistake had been made in “good faith” and upheld the trial court’s decision.
The High Court observed that even though the cited judgments were non-existent, the trial court had applied correct legal principles to the facts of the case. It ruled that merely citing incorrect or non-existent judgments would not be sufficient to set aside the order if the reasoning otherwise remained legally sound.
During the proceedings, the High Court also sought a report from the junior civil judge who had relied on the AI-generated citations. The judge informed the court that it was her first time using an AI tool and that she had believed the citations to be genuine. She stated that there was no intention to misrepresent the law and that the mistake occurred due to reliance on an automated source.
The High Court, while noting the incident, emphasised the need for the “exercise of actual intelligence over artificial intelligence”.
The defendants subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which took a much stricter view of the matter. The apex court stayed the lower court’s order and remarked that the issue was not merely an error in judgment but raised serious concerns about the adjudicatory process itself.
Observing that the case involved a significant institutional issue, the court said the problem was not the outcome of the dispute but the process through which the decision had been reached.
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Bar Council of India while indicating that the matter requires closer scrutiny.
The case comes amid growing concerns over the use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. Last month, the Supreme Court also criticised the increasing trend of lawyers relying on AI tools to draft petitions.
Similar concerns have surfaced globally. Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom have recently cautioned against the use of AI-generated legal material after instances where fictitious case laws were cited in judicial proceedings.
India’s judiciary has already begun examining the issue. Last year, the Supreme Court released a white paper on the use of artificial intelligence in the judicial system, outlining guidelines and best practices for judges, lawyers and court staff. The document emphasised the need for strict human oversight and institutional safeguards while using AI tools in legal processes.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.