The Supreme Court of India has a strict view over using artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial rulings without the human application of mind and verification. The court was hearing an appeal where the trial court had decided the matter, citing multiple AI-generated non-existent case laws.
In the ongoing case of Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr v Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr, the court was hearing an appeal from the Andhra Pradesh high court that had realised the AI and non-existent nature of the decision relied on by the trial court, only recorded a word of caution and decided the case on merits affirming the trial court’s decision.
While issuing a notice to the opposite parties, the Supreme Court said the present case was of “considerable institutional concern” due to the adjudication and determination process.
Appellants in this case were defendants in a property dispute before the trial court, which appointed an advocate commissioner to note the physical features of the property. The petitioners challenged this report. The trial court dismissed the objections and continued with the case proceedings.
The trial court’s dismissal mentioned several cases being relied on that simply did not exist.
The apex court has directed the trial court to not proceed on the basis of the advocate commissioner’s report until the present suit is decided.
The court also acknowledged the direct bearing of the trial court’s reliance on AI generated non-existent, fake or synthetic alleged judgments in its order, on the integrity of the adjudicatory process. That court said such a decision was not an error in decision making, but misconduct and would result in legal consequences.
The case is notable due to the possibility of setting a precedent for unsupervised use of AI on judicial work.
A notice was also issued to the attorney general, solicitor general and the Bar Council of India, so the stakeholders could collectively work on this matter.
The court has appointed senior counsel Shyam Divan for assistance, who has also been given the liberty to nominate an advocate-on-record to assist him.
The tentative next hearing date is scheduled for 10 April 2026.
