Supreme Court voices concern over growing ‘menace’ of citing AI-generated non-existent judgements
The Supreme Court has recently sounded a strong warning against the growing practice of lawyers and litigants relying on AI‑generated, non‑existent judgments in court pleadings, calling it a “menace” that is now rampant not only in India but across courts worldwide.
What the Court observed
A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, while hearing a special‑leave petition from a company director, noted that submissions inspired or produced by AI tools sometimes cite judgments that do not exist, either by fabricating case names or inventing citations. The Court observed that such material is being used by parties without adequate verification, thereby threatening the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
Context of the current case
The appeal arose from a Bombay High Court order criticizing a director’s written submissions, which the High Court held appeared to be AI‑generated and referred to a non‑existent judgment (for example, a case cited as “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”). The Supreme Court, while expunging those adverse remarks as a matter of indulgence, used the occasion to underline that the misuse of AI‑generated fake precedents is a systemic problem, not merely an isolated lapse.
Wider institutional concern
The Court has also taken cognizance of reports that even trial‑court orders are relying on AI‑created “synthetic” judgments, and has warned that decisions based on such non‑existent authorities may amount to misconduct rather than a mere error. It has indicated that the judiciary is “seized of this matter on the judicial side,” meaning that broader guidelines or regulatory measures on the use of AI in legal research and drafting are likely to be considered in the near future.
Practical takeaway for lawyers
For practitioners, the message is clear: any AI‑assisted research or drafting must be rigorously cross‑checked against authentic, published reports or trusted databases before a citation is placed before the court. Relying blindly on AI‑generated references risks not just adverse remarks but potential professional accountability, especially if such non‑existent “judgments” begin to influence orders or decisions.
