Underscoring its resolve to adopt Artificial Intelligence (AI) in aid of the adjudicatory process while retaining complete human control at every stage of adjudication, the Supreme Court on Thursday called for a zero-tolerance policy towards the production, citation or reliance upon AI-generated fake, non-existent or hallucinated material without verification, declaring that any decision tainted even by an iota of such material would be liable to be set aside as it strikes at the very sanctity and integrity of the judicial process.
Terming the citation of such fabricated precedents without verification as professional misconduct on the part of an advocate, a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, said that judicial reliance on such material would amount to an equally serious lapse.
“It is necessary for Courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification. It is a misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verification. Equally, it is a serious lapse if a judge relies on such a fake or hallucinated AI-generated material as precedents in support of the determination”, the judgment said.
The observations came while setting aside the judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after finding that the Tribunal had relied upon a non-existent AI-generated precedent as though it were a genuine judicial authority. The Court held that such orders could not be sustained as they undermined the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
Making it clear that AI can only assist and never replace judicial decision-making, the Court emphasised that adjudication must always remain under “a human in the loop at every stage.”
“More than the inevitable consequence of setting aside such judgments, what is significant for our decision-making is our resolve to adopt AI technology in aid of adjudication, while at the same time asserting and declaring total and absolute control over adjudication, with a human in the loop at every stage.”, the judgment said cautioning against any dilution of human involvement at any stage of the adjudicatory process.
Declaring a zero-tolerance approach for both the Bar and the Bench in relation to the presentation or reliance upon fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent, the Court observed that advocates are duty-bound to verify every precedent before citing it and judges must equally ensure that the authorities relied upon are genuine.
The Court held that any judgment founded, even to a minimal extent, on fake or hallucinated AI-generated material is “no decision in the eyes of law” and is liable to be set aside, irrespective of whether such material directly or indirectly influenced the outcome.
“Such decisions are to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, as it would violate the sanctity of adjudication. It is absolutely necessary to maintain integrity in decision-making, and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material”, the judgment said.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations should not be construed as opposition to the legitimate use of Artificial Intelligence in the justice delivery system. Rather, the prohibition is confined to the presentation or reliance upon fabricated or hallucinated material as though it were a genuine judicial precedent, stressing that preserving the integrity and credibility of judicial decision-making must remain paramount.
“It is also clarified that our judgment shall have no bearing on the rightful use of AI, but on the presentation or reliance on fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent”, the Court said.
Cautioning against over-reliance on Artificial Intelligence, the Court emphasised that while technology can assist human decision-making, it cannot replace the human capacity for independent thought, wisdom and moral judgment.
“Wisdom and foresight compel us to recognise human vulnerability to seek comfort in delegation, but if thinking is delegated and it forms a habit, it will have serious consequences for the core of human existence, which lies in its capacity to think – to discern the distinction between what is right and what is wrong, truth and falsehood, virtue and vice, dharma and adharma.”
The Court further observed that the human capacity for judgment is cultivated through disciplined reasoning and lived experience, enabling individuals to distinguish between fact and fiction, reality and illusion, and justice and injustice.
“This capability is neither given nor superimposed by birth, but arises from a deliberate, disciplined, and systematic training of the mind alongside lived experiences; it is a battle of the mind against bewitchment caused by the uncertainties between fact and fiction, what is real and what is unreal, propriety and impropriety, as well as what is just and unjust.”
Describing this as the foundation of sound judicial decision-making, the Court said that it is this exercise of intellect, informed by experience and foresight, that enables judges to resolve competing claims and uphold justice with courage and conviction.
“This intellectual exercise, coupled with experience and foresight, enables us to choose between competing values, as well as to take hard decisions with courage and conviction, and to bring about a beautiful balance between the need for order and the quest for justice.”
Observing that merely declaring a prohibition would be insufficient unless accompanied by accountability and consequential action, the Court directed the Bar Council of India, as the apex statutory body, to constitute a committee to deliberate on the issue of advocates placing fake or hallucinated material before courts as though it were genuine precedents of law.
The Court said the Bar Council must treat the issue with utmost seriousness, formulate appropriate guiding principles to prevent such occurrences, and prescribe disciplinary action for violations.
Holding that the judicial process and the impugned decisions stood vitiated by reliance on materials projected as judicial precedents but which were, “in reality, unreal, fake, and do not exist at all”, the Supreme Court set aside the August 28, 2024 NCLT, and September 11, 2025. NCLAT judgments. The matter was remanded to the NCLT for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The case arose out of Pooja Ramesh Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank.