Supreme Court warns against uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings: “It is a serious mistake if…” | Today’s news

The Supreme Court on Thursday warned against using AI-generated precedents without verification. He emphasized that “it is serious misconduct” for a judge to rely on “fake or hallucinatory AI-generated material” as precedents.

It calls for a “zero tolerance” approach to false or hallucinatory AI-generated judicial precedents, and the court ruled that it is professional misconduct for defense attorneys to cite such rulings without verification and serious misconduct for judges to rely on such non-existent precedents to decide cases, Live Law reported.

The court declared that decisions based on such false precedents were invalid because they could not be considered “decisions in the eyes of law”.

The observation was made by Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, who quashed the NCLAT and NCLT judgments after finding that they relied on fake AI-generated citations.

The Court heard an appeal arising out of insolvency proceedings initiated by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act against Essel Infraprojects Ltd. (EIL) which provided a corporate guarantee in respect of credit facilities extended to Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd.

The NCLT in Mumbai admitted the insolvency petition on 28 August 2024 and noted the default ₹87.43 million crowns. The NCLAT subsequently confirmed the acceptance order on 11 September 2025.

“No decision in the eyes of the law”

The court stated that any decision marked by fabricated or hallucinatory precedents is “no decision in the eyes of law” and must be set aside to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

“It is necessary for the courts to adopt a zero-tolerance regime for creating, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification. It is wrong for a lawyer to cite such judgments without verification,” the court said, according to Live Law.

“Equally, it is grave misconduct for a judge to rely on such false or hallucinatory AI-generated material as precedents to support a decision,” he added.

The court added: “We have no hesitation in declaring that such a decision is not a decision in the eyes of law, regardless of whether such material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decision.”

“Such decisions have to be set aside even if a bit of false or hallucinatory material enters the decision-making process as it would violate the sanctity of decision-making,” the Supreme Court said.

“It is imperative to maintain integrity in decision-making and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for both the Bar and the Senate to cite, refer to or rely on such materials,” the court said.

He also clarified that “our judgment will have no bearing on the legitimate use of AI, but on the presentation or reliance on false or hallucinatory material as if it were judicial precedent.”

The Supreme Court has reportedly directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to set up a committee to look into the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice and decision-making. According to the Times of India, the court said there was a clear need for regulatory safeguards and also urged both the Bar and the Bench to exercise caution in using such technology.

The court questioned the judicial adequacy of the NCLAT and observed that although it is an appellate tribunal, how could it escape scrutiny of a non-existent judgment cited by the tribunal.

“And what about the appellate tribunal? The bogus, non-existent judgments escaped the scrutiny of the first statutory appellate tribunal. Today’s courts and tribunals implicitly trust lawyers when they refer to precedents set before them,” the Supreme Court said.

“Imagine the quandary of a situation where a court has to verify the genuineness of every judgment cited by an advocate,” the court observed, stressing that “a decision by a court or a judicial authority based on material that is false and hallucinatory is no decision at all and amounts to subverting the rule of law.