The Allahabad High Court recently ordered a probe into the preparation of an allegedly forged high school marksheet which apparently appeared to have been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and was produced before the Court.

A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani observed that producing a manipulated, forged, and AI-generated document before the Court not only tarnishes the dignity of the institution but also shakes a litigant's trust and adversely affects the justice dispensation system.

Describing the document as a "fruit of poisonous tree", the Court, on September 25, directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to appoint a competent officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter.

The Court has called for a report indicating the involvement or complicity of persons in preparing the forged document. The report is to be submitted within four weeks thereafter.

The matter has been listed for November 12.

Briefly put, a writ petition was filed by Neha Pandey and another petitioner, claiming that they were being harassed by the police in connection with their marriage, which was solemnised at an Arya Samaj temple in Lucknow on September 4, 2026.

However, during the hearing, the Court took note of a discrepancy regarding the date of birth of petitioner No. 2.

While the high school marksheet annexed with the writ petition recorded his date of birth as July 29, 2006, the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj recorded it as July 29, 2005.

The Court had earlier directed the Secretary of Arya Samaj, Sector Q, Aliganj, Lucknow, and the priest who had solemnised the marriage to appear before it along with the relevant records.

On September 22, the Secretary produced a high school marksheet which, according to him, had been furnished by petitioner No. 2 for solemnising the marriage. However, when the Court compared it with the marksheet annexed with the writ petition, it noticed several differences.

Apart from the difference in the date of birth, the certificate numbers were also different.

The Court further noticed that the transcript in the marksheet filed with the petition was in Hindi, whereas the corresponding transcript in the document produced by the Secretary was in a different language, which was neither Hindi nor Sanskrit.

The Court had consequently directed the petitioners to appear in person and ordered that the documents and register produced by the Arya Samaj Secretary be kept in a sealed cover.

Appearing in person, petitioner No. 2, however, claimed that he had supplied a copy of his original marksheet, which recorded his date of birth as July 29, 2006.

Against this backdrop, the Bench observed that a perusal of the manipulated certificate produced by the Arya Samaj Secretary was prima facie sufficient to infer that it had been manipulated.

The Court further observed that the high school certificate apparently appeared to have been prepared using Artificial Intelligence (AI). It noted that the Hindi transcript could not be found in the certificate due to the technical application used.

Expressing surprise that such a document had been produced before the High Court, the Bench described it as a “fruit of poisonous tree”.

The Bench observed that if petitioner No. 2 had actually supplied the manipulated and AI-generated marksheet to the Arya Samaj Secretary, there would have been no occasion for him to file his original high school marksheet along with the petition.

The Court, however, observed that the matter required an inquiry.

"...preparation of forged and manipulated marks-sheet indicating the age of petitioner No.2 as 29.07.2005 has become a riddle and same has been filed in the Court proceeding before the Court, therefore, this Court cannot sit over the matter being a serious concern and same should be answered in appropriate manner", the Bench said.

The Court further observed:

"Producing a manipulated, forged and AI generated document before the Court tends not only in order to tarnish the dignity of the institution but also shake of trust of a litigant and to affect adversely the justice dispensation system".

In view of the above, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to appoint an officer not below the rank of DCP within one week to probe the matter and identify the persons involved in preparing the forged document.

The Bench further directed both petitioners, the Secretary of Arya Samaj, Sector Q, Aliganj, and the priest who solemnised the marriage to remain present before the Inquiry Officer as and when required. The officer has also been directed to conduct an inquiry on the spot.