Fake AI citations: what the Supreme Court has said

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668 (2 July 2026)

The National Company Law Tribunal's order relied on judgments that did not exist and on paragraphs that were not in the judgments they were attributed to. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and the appellate order that upheld it (paragraph 18). In the Court's words:

“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. We have no hesitation in declaring that such a decision is no decision in the eyes of the law, irrespective of whether such material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decisionmaking.”Paragraph 7

“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.”Paragraph 7

“A decision of a Court or an adjudicating authority based on material which is fake and hallucinated is no decision at all, and it amounts to subversion of the rule of law. Such a decision is unsustainable and has to be set aside at the earliest.”Paragraph 17

On where the material came from, the Court recorded that the first respondent's affidavit “indicates that the so-called precedents relied on by the adjudicating authority were obtained through its own research”, and observed:

“Today’s courts and tribunals implicitly trust lawyers when referring to precedents cited before them. Imagine the hardship of a situation in which the Court must verify the authenticity of each judgment cited by an advocate.”Paragraph 16

On the Bar, the Court directed:

“So far as the responsibility of the bar is concerned, we direct the Bar Council of India, being the apex statutory body, to constitute a committee and deliberate on this issue of members of the bar submitting such fake and hallucinated material before the Court as if they are precedents of law. The Bar Council must take up this issue with utmost seriousness, deliberate earnestly, and prescribe a guiding principle to prevent such occurrences, along with the disciplinary action that will follow a violation of the norms.”Paragraph 9

Check the Bar Council of India's own website for anything it has issued under this direction.

Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 947 (2 September 2026)

A customs penalty order had relied on judgments and articles that the appellant said were generated using AI. The Court checked the citations itself:

“Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI.”Paragraph 4

It referred to Pooja Ramesh Singh, quoting its paragraph 7 (paragraph 5), and added:

The free copy of Gadiya we link reads “artificial intelligence-generated” and “decision-making” where the Supreme Court Reports text of Pooja Ramesh Singh quoted above reads “AI-generated” and “decisionmaking”. We quote Pooja Ramesh Singh from the Supreme Court Reports.

“Notwithstanding that the regulations are yet to be finalised, use of AI as an assistive tool to speed up the decision-making process cannot be denied. However, a note of caution must be sounded: assistance can never be substituted for adjudication. AI may well serve as training wheels but entrusting it with the pilot’s seat would be both imprudent and dangerous.”Paragraph 6

The Court set aside the High Court's order and the penalty order, and sent the proceedings back to be decided afresh by another officer of the same rank (paragraph 8).

Note the second finding in paragraph 4: some of the judgments relied on were real, but did not lay down what they were cited for. Checking that a judgment exists is not enough. How to verify a citation before you file.

The draft regulations on AI in courts

By a notice of 3 June 2026, the Supreme Court's AI Committee published a draft of the “Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026” for comments; a notice of 16 June 2026 extended the time for comments to 15 July 2026. They are a draft: under draft regulation 1(2), they would come into force in the Supreme Court on a date the Chief Justice of India appoints by notification in the Official Gazette, and in each High Court on a date its Chief Justice appoints. As the Court noted in Gadiya on 2 September 2026, “the regulations are yet to be finalised”. Check the Supreme Court's website for the current text before relying on any of it.

Two provisions of the draft bear directly on filings:

“(3) Where an AI Tool is used by any party or his legal representative in the preparation or submission of any document, pleading, or evidence, the AI-assisted character of such material shall be disclosed to the Court at the time of submission by way of a duly executed declaration or certificate in the format prescribed under Annexure I …”Draft regulation 43(3)

“(6) In the event that any document, pleading, or evidence submitted to a Court is found to be fabricated, false, misleading, or inaccurate by reason of its AI-generated character, the person submitting the same shall bear full responsibility therefor and shall not be entitled to rely upon the character of the AI output as a defence. The Court may pass such orders as it deems fit against the responsible person.”Draft regulation 43(6)

In practice

• Check every judgment you cite against its source before you file, whether or not you used AI to find it: that it exists, that its details are right, that any words you quote are in it, and that it says what you cite it for.
• Keep a note of where you checked each one.
• Read the judgments above in full; this page quotes only parts of them.