The Supreme Court has taken a strong stand on the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the judicial process, saying that if a court’s decision is found to be based on fake or non-existent decisions prepared by AI, then it will not only be an error in the decision, but will amount to misconduct, which will have legal consequences.
On February 27, 2026, the bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aaradhe said that it would investigate the matter in detail. It issued notices to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India.
The court has also appointed senior advocate Shyam Dewan to assist in this case. The bench said, ‘We take cognizance of the lower court relying on non-existent, fake or artificial alleged judgments generated by AI and wish to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the sanctity of the judicial process.’
The court said in the order, ‘First of all, we have to make it clear that taking decisions based on such baseless and fake alleged decisions is not an error in decision making. This would be misconduct and would attract legal consequences. It is important that we investigate this issue in more detail. The issue came up before the Supreme Court when it was hearing a petition challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The court said that this matter is a matter of great concern from the institutional point of view. The court said, ‘Issue notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Bar Council of India (BCI).’ The Supreme Court said that till the disposal of the suit, the trial court had appointed an advocate-commissioner to analyze the physical features of the disputed property.
The bench said that the petitioners had challenged the report of the advocate-commissioner by raising some objections. The court said that the lower court had rejected the objections in its order in August last year and had relied on some judgments in the process. Subsequently, the petitioners challenged the order of the trial court and argued that the decisions cited and relied upon were non-existent and fake.
The Supreme Court said that the High Court considered the objection and found that the decisions were prepared by AI. The court said that while warning to exercise caution, the High Court proceeded to decide the case on merits and confirmed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the civil revision petition.
After this, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order. The bench agreed to hear the petition and issued a notice in this regard.
Fixing the hearing of the case on March 10, the court said, ‘Till the disposal of the special leave petition, we direct that the trial court should not proceed on the basis of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner.’ Hearing a separate case on February 17, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed serious concern over the growing practice of lawyers filing petitions prepared with AI tools.
