Menace Of Citing AI-Generated Fake Judgments Rampant Not Just In India, Across World : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently stated that the practice of citing AI-generated non-existent judgments is a "menace" which is been rampant not just in India but across the world. It cautioned parties to be careful.
These remarks were made by a bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi in a special leave petition filed by the Director of a Company, seeking to expunge the remarks made by the Bombay High Court after he cited a non-existent judgment generated using artifical intelligence. The matter pertains to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Vide an order dated January 7, the Bombay High Court in paragraph 22 made certain remarks that the submissions of the appellant were generated using Chat GPT, including a judgment which had no citation in the real world. It said that the High Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out the caselaw but could not do so. It said:
"The Respondent has filed written submissions in February 2025 and April 2025. From the overall tenor of the written submissions and a few give-away features, such as green-box tick-marks, bulletpoint-marks, repetitive submissions etc., this Court strongly feels that the submissions are prepared using an AI tool such as Chat GPT or alike. A strong pointer is seen from a reference made to one alleged caselaw “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”. Neither citation is given nor a copy of judgment is supplied by the Respondent. This Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out this caselaw but could not find. This has resulted in waste of precious judicial time.
The High Court said that an AI tool can very well be used to aid research; however, there is a great responsibility on the party to cross-verify the references and the materials generated by it.
The High Court added: "This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud. This is not assistance to the Court. This is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice. This Court will not take such practices kindly and it is going to result in costs. If an advocate is found to be indulging in such practice, then even stricter action of referring to Bar Council may follow."
Justice MM Sathaye imposed Rs. 50,000 as cost on the appellant and directed him to pay it to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
Although the Supreme Court allowed the remarks to be expunged, it noted with caution: "Though, he tried to explain that he never cited that judgment, however, at the present we are not going into that issue. As a matter of indulgence, we expunge the remarks made in the aforesaid paragraph. However, the fact remains that this menace is rampant in all Courts now, not only in India rather throughout the world. Everyone needs to be careful about this. In fact, this Court is already seized of this matter on judicial side."
It may be noted that another bench of the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the issue after a trial court's judgment cited AI-generated fake citations.
With the aforesaid observations, it disposed of the SLP.
Many of the Supreme Court judges have time and again flagged the use of AI tools in drafting legal proceedings containing fake citations and quotes.
Case Details: HEART AND SOUL ENTERTAINMENT LTD.v. DEEPAK S/O SHIVKUMAR BAHRY|Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3090/2026
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person (through VC)
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Janay Jain, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Sameer, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sarthi, AOR