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 | Zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on AI-generated precedents without verification | Bar Council must take up this issue with utmost seriousness: SC
The Supreme Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Anr. held that judicial decisions founded on fake, non-existent, or AI-generated hallucinated precedents are legally unsustainable and amount to a subversion of the rule of law. In a challenge to the admission of a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Court found that the NCLT had relied on fabricated and wrongly cited precedents, while the NCLAT failed to detect the defect. Declaring a zero-tolerance approach, the Court ruled that advocates who cite AI-generated precedents without verification commit professional misconduct, and adjudicating authorities relying on such material commit a serious judicial lapse. It directed the Bar Council of India to frame guidelines and consider disciplinary measures against such practices. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders, restored the Section 7 application for fresh adjudication on merits, directed its expeditious disposal, and ordered the parties to maintain status quo pending the proceedings.
