Orders based on AI-generated judgments will be construed as misconduct: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a sharp warning against the use of artificial intelligence-generated material in judicial decision-making, cautioning that orders founded on fabricated judgments would amount to judicial misconduct and invite legal consequences.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it would examine the issue in depth and issued notices to R Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India. Senior advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court.
“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,” the bench said in its order dated February 27. It added that a ruling based on such material “is not an error in the decision making” and that “misconduct and legal consequence shall follow.”
The matter arose during the hearing of a plea challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which related to a civil suit seeking an injunction. The Supreme Court said the case raised institutional concerns, not due to the outcome on merits but because of the process by which the decision was reached.
According to the record, the trial court had appointed an advocate-commissioner to document the physical features of a disputed property while the suit was pending. The petitioners objected to the commissioner’s report, but the trial court dismissed those objections in August last year, relying on certain judgments in support of its reasoning.
The petitioners later challenged that order, arguing that the judgments cited were non-existent and generated using AI tools. The Supreme Court noted that the high court acknowledged the issue, recognised that the judgments were fabricated, and issued a caution. However, it went on to decide the matter on merits, dismissing the civil revision petition and affirming the trial court’s order.
Following this, the petitioners approached the apex court. While agreeing to hear the plea, the bench directed that, pending disposal of the special leave petition, the trial court must not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner’s report. The case has been listed for hearing on March 10.
The warning comes amid wider judicial concern over AI misuse. On February 17, a separate bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant flagged instances of lawyers filing pleadings drafted with AI tools that cited imaginary cases such as “Mercy vs Mankind”, underscoring growing unease over unchecked reliance on such technology in legal practice.
