In A First, Punjab & Haryana High Court Hyperlinks All Precedents Cited In Its Judgement
In a first, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has embedded working hyperlinks to every precedent cited in its judgment— spanning over 35 Supreme Court decisions stretching from 1951 to 2025, allowing any reader to instantly access and verify the full text of each authority relied upon.In its 32-page judgement, the Division bench of the High Court referred to 35 case laws with the link...
In a first, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has embedded working hyperlinks to every precedent cited in its judgment— spanning over 35 Supreme Court decisions stretching from 1951 to 2025, allowing any reader to instantly access and verify the full text of each authority relied upon.
In its 32-page judgement, the Division bench of the High Court referred to 35 case laws with the link which opens directly to the pdf of the judgement (mostly) on Supreme Court website.
The move is significant in the backdrop of growing judicial and institutional concern over the reliability of artificial intelligence tools in legal research.
The Supreme Court had recently declared a strict zero-tolerance mode for the Bar as well as the Bench regarding producing, citing, or using AI-generated precedents without thorough verification— stating that such fake or hallucinated judgments without verification amounts to professional misconduct on the part of an advocate. It observed that it is a serious lapse if a judge relies on such fabricated material as precedents to support a judicial determination.
To ensure accountability, the Supreme Court had also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute a dedicated committee to deliberate on the issue of advocate members submitting fake and hallucinated AI generated material as law precedents .The BCI was mandated to prescribe guiding principles to prevent such occurrences and outline corresponding disciplinary actions for violations.
In the present case, the High Court set aside the death sentences awarded by the trial Court to both convicts and remanded the matter for retrial from summons stage.
The Court found that the Investigating Officer had failed to forward the FSL report to the post-mortem doctors for their final opinion on sexual assault, and that the trial Court had inadequately complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 313 CrPC by failing to put material incriminating circumstances to both the accused.