The Supreme Court’s latest judgment can be accessed here.
The Supreme Court’s (SC) July 2, 2026, ruling declaring zero tolerance for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated fake precedents was, in its own words, “yet again a case” of a tribunal relying on hallucinated material. Fabricated citations, judgments that do not exist, or real ones stuffed with invented paragraphs have surfaced across tribunals, trial courts, and High Courts (HCs) over the past year, with several cases clustered in the last seven months.
Here are some cases that built up to the ruling:
1. Tribunal relied on six defective precedents, none cited by counsel (July 2026). A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the Essel Infraprojects insolvency matter. Of the six judgments the NCLT relied on, three did not exist, and three real citations carried invented paragraphs or an incorrect case title. Jammu and Kashmir Bank’s affidavit stated that its counsel had cited none of them, meaning the tribunal sourced the fake precedents through its own research, which then escaped scrutiny at the NCLAT.
The SC called it misconduct for an advocate and a serious lapse for a judge, directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to frame disciplinary norms, and likened hallucinated case law to “the release of methyl isocyanate in the province of law and justice.”
2. SC declared fake AI citations “misconduct” and issued notices (February 2026). On February 27, 2026, the SC took cognisance of the Gummadi Usha Rani trial court order, declaring that a decision based on fake AI-generated judgments is “not an error” but “misconduct” with “legal consequences.” It stayed reliance on the disputed report and issued notices to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and the BCI, appointing senior advocate Shyam Divan as amicus curiae. This was the direct precursor to the July ruling.
3. A fictitious “Mercy v. Mankind” alarmed the SC (February 2026). On February 17, 2026, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi flagged the growing use of AI to draft petitions while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on political speeches. Justice Nagarathna said she had come across a non-existent case titled Mercy v. Mankind, and the CJI noted that in Justice Dipankar Datta’s court “a series of such judgments were cited.”
4. Bombay HC fined a litigant Rs 50,000 for “dumping” AI content (January 2026). In Deepak v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd., the Bombay HC found that a litigant’s submissions in an eviction dispute cited a judgment the court could not trace, Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani vs Elegant Associates. It flagged tell-tale signs of AI-generated output, including green tick-marks and repetitive phrasing, and imposed Rs 50,000 in costs.
5. Andhra Pradesh HC held fake…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
