SC: AI-Generated Fake Orders Threaten Integrity Of Justice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that reliance on non-existent or fabricated judgments does not amount to a mere error in decision-making; rather, it constitutes misconduct, carrying legal consequences. The top court underscored that this issue demands closer scrutiny and more detailed examination.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe on February 27, 2026. The apex court said this case assumes considerable institutional concern, not because of the decision that was taken on the merits of the case, but about the process of adjudication and determination.

The bench said it will examine the matter in detail and issued a notice to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India. The bench also appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist the court. “Issue notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India. We appoint Shyam Divan, senior counsel, to assist the court. He may nominate an advocate on record for his assistance,” said the bench in its order.

The matter arose before the apex court while it was hearing a plea challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had arisen from a suit seeking an injunction.

The bench noted that the trial court's reliance on AI-generated, non-existent, fabricated, or synthetic judgments cannot be overlooked. It emphasised the need to examine the consequences and accountability of such practices, given their direct impact on the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

"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", said the bench, in its order.

The bench noted that petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents for injunction and pending disposal of the suit, the trial court appointed an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the property. The bench noted that the petitioners challenged the report of the advocate commissioner by raising certain objections.

The bench noted that the trial court, in its order passed in August last year, dismissed the objections and in the process, relied on certain judgments. “The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the trial court, inter alia, contending that the judgments referred to and relied on are non-existent and fake orders. The high court considered the objection and realised that the judgments are Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated and after recording a word of caution proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition affirming the decision of the trial court. Thus, the petitioner is before us. Issue notice, returnable on 10.03.2026," said the apex court.

Read More

1. ‘Shed British-Era Norms, Revisit Coast Guard Retirement Rules’, SC To Centre
2. ‘You Want To Hang Him?’, SC To Nitish Katara Family's Counsel On Furlough For Vikas Yadav