The debate surrounding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal system reached the Supreme Court on Thursday after it found that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had relied on fake judicial precedents and AI-generated case citations while deciding an insolvency matter.
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT’s judgment in the Essel Infraprojects insolvency case after observing that the tribunal had cited “non-existent, fake and hallucinated” judgments generated through AI, news agency PTI reported.
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe strongly criticised the practice, saying, “The production of fake, non-existent, and hallucinated material and its utilisation as precedents in law is like the release of methyl isocyanate into the province of law and justice. It is invisible, insidious and catastrophic by the time anyone notices. It not only contaminates but takes away the very lifeblood of judicial determination.”
The court emphasised that there must be zero tolerance towards the use of AI-generated legal precedents without proper verification.
“It is necessary for courts to adopt a zero tolerance approach towards producing, citing or relying upon AI-generated precedents without verification. It amounts to professional misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verifying their authenticity,” the bench observed.
The judges further held that it would be an equally serious lapse if a judge relied upon fake or hallucinated AI-generated material while delivering a verdict.
“We have no hesitation in declaring that such a decision is no decision in the eyes of law, irrespective of whether such material directly or indirectly influenced the outcome. Any judgment that is even minimally tainted by fake or hallucinated material must be set aside, as it compromises the sanctity of the adjudicatory process,” the bench said.
The court stressed that preserving the integrity of judicial decision-making remains paramount.
At the same time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the growing role of artificial intelligence in the legal ecosystem, clarifying that while AI can assist judges, the ultimate responsibility for adjudication must always rest with humans.
“What is significant for our decision making is our resolve to adopt artificial intelligence technology in aid of adjudication while simultaneously ensuring that complete and absolute control over every stage of the adjudicatory process remains with the human in the loop,” the judgment stated.
The bench further observed that merely condemning such practices would not be enough and called for concrete accountability measures.
Addressing the legal fraternity, the court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute a committee to examine the issue of advocates submitting fake or AI-generated precedents before courts as though they were genuine judicial authorities.
The Supreme Court said the apex statutory body should treat the matter with utmost seriousness, formulate appropriate guidelines to prevent such incidents, and prescribe disciplinary action for advocates found violating the proposed norms.
