The Supreme Court of India has taken cognisance of a trial court relying on alleged non-existent verdicts generated through artificial intelligence (AI), observing that a decision based on such fake judgments would amount to misconduct rather than a mere error in decision-making.
A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it would examine the issue in detail and issued notice 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.
“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 in its February 27 order.
“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,” it added.
The issue arose while the apex court was hearing a plea challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a suit seeking injunction.
Also read: Fresh PIL in SC flags one more NCERT book passage on judiciary
The top court observed that the matter raised institutional concerns, not merely regarding the outcome of the case but about the adjudicatory process itself.
In the case, the trial court had appointed an advocate-commissioner to record the physical features of the disputed property. The petitioners challenged the commissioner’s report and objected to certain findings. However, in dismissing those objections in August last year, the trial court relied on certain judgments.
The petitioners contended that the judgments cited were non-existent and AI-generated. The high court noted the objection and acknowledged that the verdicts were AI-generated. After recording a word of caution, it proceeded to decide the matter on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition.
The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court, which has agreed to examine the plea. Pending disposal of the special leave petition, the Bench directed that the trial court shall not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner’s report. The matter has been posted for hearing on March 10.
In a separate hearing on February 17, a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed concern over lawyers filing petitions drafted using AI tools that cite non-existent judgments such as “Mercy vs Mankind”.
Follow us
