NEW DELHI (2 March 2026) — The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of a disturbing trend where a trial court relied on non-existent, AI-generated “fake” legal precedents to decide a case. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe categorically stated that basing a judicial decision on fabricated judgments is not a mere “error of judgment” but constitutes professional misconduct.
Origin of the Controversy: Hallucinated Citations
The issue emerged during the hearing of a special leave petition challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The underlying matter involved a property injunction suit where the trial court had dismissed objections to an Advocate Commissioner’s report.
To justify its August 2025 order, the trial court cited several case laws that appeared legitimate but were later found to be “synthetic” or “hallucinated” by AI tools. The non-existent cases included:
- Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95
- Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68
- Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551
- Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223
While the Andhra Pradesh High Court had noted the “AI-generated” nature of these citations and issued a word of caution, it had still affirmed the trial court’s decision on its merits. The Supreme Court, however, has stayed the trial court’s proceedings based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report, citing “considerable institutional concern.”
Institutional Accountability and Misconduct
The apex court emphasized that the integrity of the adjudicatory process is at stake when “fake or synthetic” judgments are deployed by the bench.
“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,” the Court stated in its February 27 order.
To examine the broader consequences and fix accountability, the Court has:
- Issued Notices: To the Attorney General for India (R. Venkataramani), the Solicitor General (Tushar Mehta), and the Bar Council of India (BCI).
- Appointed Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court in establishing guidelines for AI use in the judiciary.
The “Mercy vs Mankind” Precedent
This is not an isolated incident. On February 17, another bench led by CJI Surya Kant expressed alarm over lawyers filing petitions drafted with AI tools that included phantom citations like “Mercy vs Mankind”. The Chief Justice warned that while AI can augment research, “human oversight is non-negotiable” and the judge or lawyer must remains the final arbiter of truth.
The Supreme Court is now set to determine if stricter disciplinary rules are required for both the Bar and the Bench regarding the unverified use of Generative AI. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on March 10, 2026.
Sources
- The Hindu: “Supreme Court takes cognisance of trial court relying on AI-generated ‘fake’ verdicts” (2 March 2026)
- Bar and Bench: “Judges citing fake AI-generated case laws amounts to misconduct: Supreme Court” (2 March 2026)
- Hindustan Times: “SC takes cognisance of trial court relying on AI-generated ‘fake’ verdicts” (2 March 2026)
- LawBeat: “Trial Court Uses AI-made Judgments; SC Says ‘Misconduct, Legal Consequence Shall Follow’” (2 March 2026)
- Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC slams lawyers for using AI, warns against fake judgments” (17 February 2026)
Leave a Reply