BREAKING | Supreme Court Flags Trial Court Citing “AI-Generated Fake Judgments”, Terms It Misconduct

The Supreme Court has taken serious exception to a trial court relying on what were found to be non-existent, allegedly AI-generated judgments, observing that such conduct strikes at the integrity of the adjudicatory process and may amount to misconduct rather than a mere error of law.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a special leave petition arising out of a civil revision decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

We take cognizance 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 integrity of adjudicatory process. 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. It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail.

The petitioners are defendants in a suit for injunction instituted by the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property in dispute.

The petitioners raised objections to the Commissioner's report. However, by order dated August 19, 2025, the trial court dismissed the objections. In doing so, it relied upon four purported decisions of the Supreme Court, including:

• Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95
• Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy (1971) 2 SCC 68
• Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551
• Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that these cited judgments were “non-existent and fake orders.”

The High Court examined the contention and found that the judgments referred to by the trial court were Artificial Intelligence-generated. While recording a word of caution, it proceeded to decide the matter on merits and ultimately dismissed the civil revision petition, affirming the trial court's decision.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observations

The Bench noted that the case raised “considerable institutional concern,” not because of the merits of the dispute, but due to the “process of adjudication and determination.”

Significantly, the Court observed:

“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 said it would examine the consequences and accountability arising from the trial court's deployment of AI-generated, non-existing or synthetic judgments, as it has a “direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process.”

In view of the wider implications, the Court also issued notice to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India and the Bar Council of India.

Further, the Bench appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan as amicus curiae to assist the Court, permitting him to nominate an Advocate-on-Record for assistance.

Recently, the Supreme Court had expressed alarm over lawyers citing AI-generated fake cases in pleadings. 

AI May Assist, But Only More Judges Can Match Exploding Supreme Court Filings : Justice Dipankar Datta