AI can’t substitute judicial scrutiny, says court, cautions judges over fake citations in orders

“This Court undertook an independent verification of the judgments referred to and relied upon in the impugned order. Upon such examination, it transpires that the citations attributed to the two principal judgments forming the basis of the impugned order are incorrect,” the high court noted in its order dated June 6.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal cautioned judges against AI use.

Court cautions against use of AI

The court noted that there is an increasing use of artificial intelligence-based tools and digital research platforms in legal and judicial work. While such tools may assist research, the court stressed that they cannot replace judicial scrutiny.

“This Court is also conscious of the increasing use of artificial intelligence-based tools and digital research platforms in legal and judicial work. While such tools may serve as useful aids for research they cannot substitute judicial scrutiny and verification,” the court noted.

It emphasised that any proposition of law, citation, extract, or precedent generated or suggested by an artificial intelligence tool must be independently verified from authentic and authoritative sources before being relied upon in a judicial order.

The court cautioned that the use of technological tools must be accompanied by appropriate caution and rigorous verification so as to ensure that judicial determinations are founded only upon genuine and verifiable legal authorities.

“This Court considers it appropriate to caution the judicial officers to exercise greater care and circumspection while citing judicial precedents in future,” the court said.

The court urged judicial officers to ensure that the judgments relied upon are correctly cited, capable of verification and faithfully reflect the proposition of law sought to be applied. It further expressed hope that due diligence shall be exercised in this regard so as to avoid recurrence of such lapses.

To prevent similar lapses, the High Court laid down guidelines for the guidance of all judicial officers in the Union Territory:

• Any citation, precedent, extract, factual assertion or proposition of law obtained through artificial intelligence platforms or similar technological tools must be independently verified from authentic and authoritative sources before being relied upon or incorporated in any judicial order.
• Every precedent relied upon in a judicial order shall be accompanied by a complete and accurate citation;
• Wherever a precedent constitutes the foundation of a finding or conclusion, the relevant extract of the judgment should, as far as practicable, be reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased;
• Citations obtained from unofficial compilations, secondary sources or electronic databases should be cross-verified with authentic sources before being incorporated into judicial orders.

Supreme Court AI committee’s draft regulation

A complete ban on using artificial intelligence (AI) to decide judicial outcomes; restrictions on AI tools that predict or profile parties and witnesses; and a prohibition on undisclosed or unexplainable AI systems in court processes, these are among the draft regulations proposed by the Supreme Court AI Committee on the use of the technology in courts.

The preliminary draft of the ‘Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026’ published by the top court on Wednesday emphasises that the use of AI in court processes will always “remain strictly subservient to human judgment and judicial authority”.

Every AI system, it says, will function solely in an assistive capacity and “shall not supplant or compromise the independent exercise of judicial authority by a duly appointed judicial officer” and “the ultimate authority to determine matters of law, fact and justice shall vest exclusively in the judicial officers of the competent jurisdiction”.