Supreme Court issues warning for AI-generated case laws: ‘Not error, it is misconduct, has consequences’

What was the case?

• The petitioners were the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents for an injunction before the trial court.
• Pending disposal of the suit, the trial court appointed an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the property.
• The petitioners challenged the report of the advocate commissioner by raising certain objections.
• The trial court rejected these objections in 2025, holding that an advocate commissioner’s report is only an aid to the court and must be tested during trial through evidence and cross-examination.
• While doing so, the trial court relied on certain decisions being: i) Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95, ii) Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68, iii) Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551 and iv) Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223.
• The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the trial court before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, inter alia, contending that the judgments referred to and relied on are non-existent and fake.

• The high court, while acknowledging that the case laws referred to were generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI), dismissed the challenge to the trial court’s order while observing that a judicial order does not become invalid merely because it refers to non-existent citations or rulings generated by AI, provided the legal principles applied are otherwise correct and in consonance with settled law.
• The high court cautioned that people who employ AI for legal research should rigorously scrutinise its outputs.
• It further noted that although AI tools can be beneficial, their unregulated use may give rise to serious concerns, including violations of privacy and damage to the confidence and trust in the judicial decision-making and the judicial verdict.
• Aggrieved by the dismissal by the high court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s observations

• Issue notice, returnable on March 10, 2026.
• Pending disposal of the special leave petition, the trial court shall not proceed on the basis of the advocate commissioner’s report.
• We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
• 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.
• It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail.
• Issue notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India.