NewKerala.com

SC Flags Trial Court's Use of AI-Generated Fake Judgments as Misconduct

The Supreme Court has expressed serious institutional concern over a trial court allegedly relying on AI-generated "non-existent and fake" judgments in a property dispute case. The bench highlighted that such conduct directly impacts the integrity of the judicial process and may constitute misconduct, not merely an error. The court has issued notices to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India to examine the consequences and accountability. The matter has been adjourned to March 10, with the trial court directed to not proceed based on the disputed report in the interim.

Key Points: SC on AI-Generated Fake Judgments: A Threat to Judicial Integrity

  • SC flags AI-generated fake judgments
  • Calls it misconduct, not error
  • Directs trial court to halt proceedings
  • Seeks AG, SG, and BCI input
3 min read

'Direct bearing on integrity...': SC flags trial court's use of AI-generated 'non-existent' judgments

Supreme Court takes serious note of trial court using AI-generated "non-existent" judgments, calling it misconduct that impacts adjudicatory integrity.

"a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments... would be a misconduct, and legal consequence shall follow - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, March 2

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of a trial court allegedly relying on Artificial Intelligence-generated "non-existent and fake" judgments while deciding a civil dispute, observing that such conduct has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process and may amount to misconduct.

A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the matter raised "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 apex court was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had upheld a trial court order in a property dispute involving a suit for injunction. The petitioners before the Supreme Court are defendants in a suit for injunction filed by the respondents.

During the pendency of the suit, the trial court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the physical features of the property. The petitioners had objected to the Commissioner's report, but the trial court rejected their objections while relying on several Supreme Court precedents.

Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioners contended that the judgments cited and relied upon by the trial court were "non-existent and fake orders".

The AP High Court noted that the cited decisions were AI-generated and issued a word of caution, but proceeded to decide the matter on the merits and dismissed the civil revision petition.

Taking cognisance of the issue, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the reliance on "non-existent and fake" judgments by the trial court in judicial decision-making.

"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 Justice Narasimha-led 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 the decision-making. It would be a misconduct, and legal consequence shall follow," the apex court added.

Issuing notice in the matter, returnable on March 10, the top court directed that, pending disposal of the SLP, the trial court "shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner's Report".

The Supreme Court also issued notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General - the top law officers of the Centre, and the Bar Council of India (BCI). Further, the bench appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist the apex court in the matter, granting him liberty to nominate an Advocate-on-Record for assistance. The matter will now be taken up on March 10.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While AI is a powerful tool, its misuse in such a sensitive field is unacceptable. The judge should have verified the citations. This case shows we need urgent training for judicial officers on the ethical use of technology. Hope the SC's strong stance sets a clear precedent.
R
Rohit P
A very concerning development. The High Court also failed by just issuing a "word of caution" and moving on. They should have sent it back immediately. Glad the Supreme Court has stepped in. The integrity of every court order is now under a cloud if we can't trust the references.
S
Sarah B
As someone working in tech, this is a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." The judge probably used a public AI tool without understanding its limitations. We need official, verified AI assistants for legal research, not random chatbots. A wake-up call for the entire system.
V
Vikram M
This is embarrassing for our judiciary. What was the judge thinking? Citing a judgment without checking its authenticity is basic negligence. The property dispute parties must have suffered due to this. Hope the SC ensures accountability and compensates the affected party. 🙏
K
Karthik V
A respectful criticism: The Supreme Court's notice to the Attorney General and BCI is good, but the process is slow. March 10 for the next hearing? This needs urgent resolution to restore public confidence. Meanwhile, how many other "AI-generated" judgments are out there? A nationwide audit might be needed.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50