Delhi High Court flags use of ‘hallucinated’, AI-generated citations, calls for strict action

A bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that any ruling that’s based on an order or judgment that does not exist amounts to fraud upon the justice delivery system.

“The time has come, if an authority or court is found citing or relying upon non-existent judgments, whether generated through artificial intelligence or self-generated, a strict action including a disciplinary action be taken,” the court warned.

Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Non-existent citations

The court was hearing writ petitions filed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The EPFO argued that the appellate authority had based its decision on judgments that simply did not exist.

When the matter first came up in May, the court examined paragraph 6 of the impugned order, where the CIT(A) had cited six decisions in support of its reasoning.

The order had referred to the following inexistent cases: CIT v. Outstanding Industrial Enterprises, CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., CIT v. Jayachandran Textile Mills, CIT v. Veerabhadrappa and Sons, CIT v. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., and CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

The bench noted that the legal researchers of the court informed that they were unable to find the said judgments of the courts with the given titles.

The court directed the author of the order, then Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-2, to explain the source of those citations. In an affidavit filed before the court, the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-2, who has since retired, stated that due to a heavy workload he had relied on an Inspector, who supplied the citations, and that he inserted them into the order without verifying their authenticity.

“We have experienced that the practice of citing non-existing or hallucinated citations is increasing day by day,” the court remarked.

The court cautioned that if an authority or court is found citing or relying upon non-existent judgments, strict action, including disciplinary action be taken.

The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh decision. Since the officer who authored the order had already retired, the court declined to direct initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.

“As the author of the impugned order has since retired from service, we do not wish to pass any direction for initiation of disciplinary action against him,” the court said.