Case Law Details
Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. Vs Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The proceedings arose from a suit for permanent injunction in which the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report. The defendants objected to the Advocate Commissioner’s report, alleging that the Commissioner had acted contrary to the High Court’s earlier directions, had failed to take the assistance of the Town/Mandal Surveyor, and had colluded with the plaintiffs. The Trial Court rejected those objections on 19.08.2025, holding that the Commissioner’s report is an aid to the court, is to be treated like any other piece of evidence, and that allegations of collusion or misconduct required proof through evidence and cross-examination rather than mere assertions. While doing so, the Trial Court relied upon four judicial precedents which were subsequently found to be non-existent.
Read HC Judgment in this case: AI-Generated Fake Citations Alone Do Not Vitiate Judicial Orders: AP HC
Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the defendants challenged the Trial Court’s order primarily on the ground that it relied upon fake and non-existent authorities. The High Court called for a report from the Trial Judge. The Judicial Officer explained that the citations had been generated through an Artificial Intelligence tool, had been incorporated in good faith, and were later found to be non-existent after verification. She stated that there had been no intention to misquote judicial precedents and undertook to verify citations from authoritative sources in future. The High Court accepted the report.
The High Court then addressed the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial work. It observed that AI can assist in organising information and summarising records but cannot replace judicial reasoning or appreciation of evidence. Referring to decisions concerning AI-generated legal authorities, it observed that AI-generated outputs require careful human verification, that fabricated authorities may undermine confidence in the justice delivery system, and that courts must remain vigilant and ensure that judgments are founded upon correct legal principles.
On the merits, the High Court held that the existence of incorrect or non-existent AI-generated citations did not by itself invalidate the Trial Court’s order. According to the High Court, if the correct legal principles had been applied and correctly applied to the facts, the mere reference to non-existent authorities was not a ground for interference. It held that an Advocate Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence, forms part of the record under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC, is subject to objections and cross-examination, and ultimately assists but does not bind the court. The High Court found that the Trial Court had correctly treated the Commissioner’s report as evidence to be assessed during trial and had rightly held that allegations of collusion required proof. Concluding that the order disclosed no legal or jurisdictional error, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
The defendants thereafter approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the challenge arose from the Trial Court’s reliance upon four non-existent judgments, the subsequent dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition by the High Court after cautioning against AI-generated citations, and the High Court’s affirmation of the Trial Court’s order on merits.
The Supreme Court observed at the outset that the matter raised an issue of considerable institutional concern, not merely regarding the correctness of the decision on merits but concerning the process of adjudication itself. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition, it directed that the Trial Court should not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
The Supreme Court further took cognizance of the Trial Court’s use of AI-generated, non-existent, fake or synthetic judgments and stated that the consequences and accountability arising from such conduct required examination as the issue directly affected the integrity of the adjudicatory process. The Court declared that a decision founded upon such non-existent and fake judgments was not merely an error in decision-making but amounted to misconduct and that legal consequences would follow. It considered it necessary to examine the issue in greater detail.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition, made the interim direction restraining the Trial Court from proceeding on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s report, issued notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India regarding the larger institutional issue, and appointed a senior advocate to assist the Court. The Supreme Court did not finally decide the merits of the appeal or finally determine the correctness of the High Court’s judgment in the order provided.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This case assumes considerable institutional concern, not because of the decision that was taken on the merits of the case, but about the process of adjudication and determination.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents for injunction. Pending disposal of the suit, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the property. The petitioners challenged the report of the Advocate Commissioner by raising certain objections. The Trial Court, by its order dated 19.08.2025 dismissed the objection and in the process, relied on certain decisions being; i) Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95, ii) Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68, iii) Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551 and iv) Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223.
3. The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Trial Court, inter alia, contending that the judgments referred to and relied on are non-existent and fake orders.
4. The High Court considered the objection and realized that the judgments are Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated and after recording a word of caution proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition affirming the decision of the Trial Court. Thus, the petitioner is before us.
5. Issue notice, returnable on 10.03.2026.
6. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition, we direct that the Trial Court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s Report.
7. We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process. At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow. It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail.
8. Issue notice to the Ld. Attorney General, Ld. Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India.
9. We appoint Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, to assist the Court. He may nominate an Advocate on Record for his assistance.
Author Bio
