Premium

Non-existent orders, case laws: ‘False, fabricated, AI-generated’ plea flagged in Delhi HC

The plea, one with a dispute between two groups of homebuyers at its core, was withdrawn on Thursday.

2 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Sep 26, 2025 11:59 AM IST

On Wednesday (September 24) the High Court refused his plea, and pulled up both the Magistrate Court and Sessions Court judges for "judicial indiscipline". (File Photo)

The plea in the Delhi High Court — one with a dispute between two groups of homebuyers at its core — cited a 2008 judgment. But quoting ‘paragraph 74’ was the beginning of the end.

The judgment only had 27 paragraphs.

In a first in the Delhi High Court, a petition was withdrawn on Thursday after it was highlighted that “each and every ground is false and fabricated and AI-generated” with “non-existent” case laws cited.

The GWA was challenging interlocutory orders by a district judge in Karkardooma that was hearing pleas by homebuyers seeking factual information on oath about GWA.

The homebuyers, who were the respondent parties, were being represented by senior advocates N Hariharan, Abhijat, Sanjoy Ghose and others.

An eight-page compilation was also furnished to the court, highlighting all the alleged falsification of judicial precedents cited by the GWA in its petition.

The GWA petition cited the judgment in ‘Chitra Narain v DDA, 2008 (87) DLT 276’ case. The homebuyers said, “There is no such judgment or citation or text in any other judgment. This judgment, citation and contents of the paragraph attempted to be quoted in the petition are all false and fabricated’.

The GWA also cited in its petition the 73rd and 74th paragraph of a judgment titled ‘Raj Narain v Indira Nehru Gandhi (1972) 3 SCC 850’. The homebuyers pointed out: “Firstly, the said judgment only has 27 paragraphs, so there arises no question of there being a paragraph 73 and 74. Secondly, such a paragraph/content as is being quoted in the petition is entirely fabricated and does not exist.”

Story continues below this ad

Senior advocate Rakesh Tiku, appearing for GWA, subsequently sought the court’s permission to withdraw the petition.

The matter is related to delayed possession of flats in Gurgaon where nearly 1,600 homebuyers, who had booked houses in Greenpolis in 2012, are yet to receive possession of their homes.

Justice Kathpalia, dismissing the petition and declaring the accompanying applications as withdrawn, also recorded, “All senior counsel and counsel appearing for respondents submit that they would take appropriate steps since some of the judicial precedents cited on behalf of petitioner do not even exist and in some of the precedents, the quoted portions do not exist.”

Sohini Ghosh

Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Loading Recommendations...

Apr 12: Latest News

Live Blog