Judge uses artificial intelligence, cites non-existing case law in order: Why Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld it

Justice Tilhari observed that AI tools can be beneficial but their unregulated use may give rise to serious concerns.

It clarified that judicial interference would be warranted if the legal principle applied is not settled law, or if its application is flawed due to reliance on non-existent, AI-generated rulings.

“If the principle of law applied is not the law of the land or its application in a given case is faulted because of relying on non-existent rulings generated by AI, then the case for interference would be made out,” the order read.

Background

• The dispute arose from a civil suit for permanent injunction pending before a Vijayawada court.
• An advocate commissioner was appointed pursuant to high court directions to identify whether the suit property fell within land purchased by the first defendant.
• After the commissioner submitted a report, the defendants sought to have it struck down, alleging collusion with the plaintiffs and failure to follow the high court’s directions, including not taking the assistance of a town or mandal surveyor.
• The trial court rejected these objections, 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 cited judgments which later turned out to be AI-generated and non-traceable.

Findings

• The judicial officer reported that she had for the first time, made use of an Artificial Intelligence tool, which displayed those references and believing those to be genuine and relevant she incorporated those citations in the order.
• The judicial officer expressed that there was no intention to misquote or misrepresent those rulings in the judicial pronouncement and the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source.
• She expressed that in future, she shall exercise greater caution in verifying citations from the authoritative sources.
• The people who employ artificial intelligence for legal research should rigorously scrutinize its outputs, including the authorities cited.
• Such tools may lack access to the complete body of relevant law, may not fully comprehend the query posed, or may overlook material authorities.
• In such circumstances, artificial intelligence systems can produce responses that appear persuasive yet are factually or legally incorrect.
• More concerningly, they may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration.
• There is also the serious risk of damage to the reputation of the judges and the courts whose names are falsely attributed to fictitious opinions, as well as to parties associated with fictional conduct.
• Although artificial intelligence 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.
• The commissioner’s report is a piece of evidence. It is to be considered at the final hearing subject to the objections raised and the evidence on record.
• The petitioners may raise objections to the report, for which, the trial court has also observed viz., by way of cross examination.
• The order therefore, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners at this stage. The opportunity has been kept open to the petitioners to raise the correctness of the report on evidence.
• Merely because non-existing citations were referred due to the use of Artificial Intelligence tool, without due verification, the order would not be vitiated, when the law stated in the order and its application is correct.