New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken serious note of a trial court relying on allegedly non-existent judgments generated using artificial intelligence (AI), stating that decisions based on such fake verdicts do not merely amount to errors in judgment but constitute misconduct.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it will examine the matter in detail and has issued notices to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and the Bar Council of India. Senior advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court in the matter.
“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.
“At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in decision-making. It would amount to misconduct, and legal consequences shall follow. It is compelling that we examine this issue in detail,” the bench noted in its February 27 order.
The issue arose before the apex court during the hearing of a plea challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning a suit filed for an injunction. The Supreme Court observed that the matter raises significant institutional concerns, not due to the merits of the case itself, but because of the adjudication process and the integrity of judicial determination.
The bench instructed, “Issue notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the Bar Council of India.”
According to the court, the trial court had earlier appointed an advocate-commissioner to inspect and report on the physical features of the disputed property. The petitioners had raised objections to the advocate-commissioner’s report, which the trial court dismissed in August last year while relying on certain judgments. The petitioners contended that the verdicts cited by the trial court were non-existent and AI-generated.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, upon considering the objection, acknowledged that the judgments were indeed AI-generated but proceeded to decide the case on merits, dismissing the civil revision petition and affirming the trial court’s decision. The petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s order.
The bench has agreed to hear the plea and directed that, pending disposal of the special leave petition, the trial court shall not act on the advocate-commissioner’s report. The matter has been posted for hearing on March 10.
Separately, on February 17, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had expressed concern over a growing trend of lawyers submitting petitions drafted using AI tools that include fabricated judgments, citing examples such as “Mercy vs Mankind.” The observations were made during the hearing of a public interest litigation seeking guidelines on political speeches.
With PTI inputs