Supreme Court: In a matter raising an important issue concerning the integrity of the judicial decision-making process in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ., took cognizance of the matter and issued notice to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Bar Council of India in order to examine the systemic implications of reliance on AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged precedents
The instant dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the respondents seeking an injunction in respect of certain property. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property. After the Commissioner submitted the report, the petitioners (defendants in suit) raised objections to the report.
The trial court, by order dated 19 August 2025, dismissed the objections raised by the defendants relied upon several precedents, namely Subramani v. M. Natarajan, (2013) 14 SCC 95; Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy, (1071) 2 SCC 68; Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha, (2006) 5 SCC 551 and Gajanan v. Ramdas, (2015) 6 SCC 223.
The petitioners challenged the impugned order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a civil revision petition and contented that the precedents relied upon by the trial court were non-existent and fabricated authorities.
The High Court examined the matter and acknowledged that the cited authorities appeared to be AI-generated fake precedents. However, after recording a caution regarding such use of AI-generated fake precedents, the High Court proceeded to decide the revision on merits and dismissed the revision petition, thereby affirming the trial court’s order. Aggrieved the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
The Court took cognizance of the matter that the trial court deploying AI generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and sought to examine its consequences and accountability as the same has a direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process.
At the outset, the Court declared that “a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making,” it may amount to misconduct and entail legal consequences. The Court asserted that the matter required a deeper examination.
The Court issued notice returnable on 10 March 2026. Pending disposal of the SLP, the Court directed that the trial court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
The Court issued notice to the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Bar Council of India. It appointed Senior Advocate Shyam Divan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in examining the issue in detail.
[Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7575 of 2026, decided on 27-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Sindoora Vnl, AOR and Ms. Thithiksha Padmam, Counsel for the Petitioners