In this article we shall look at some instances of usage of artificial intelligence in legal research coming up before Courts in arguments and views of Courts on such usage.
Artificial Intelligence today has permeated our society and like it or not, it is here to stay. One of the areas it is impacting profoundly is legal research. The trend has been observed not just in India but across the Globe. More than the positives surrounding its usage, what has garnered attention of the legal practitioners is the views of the Courts on misuse or unverified usage of Artificial Intelligence in putting forth one’s arguments before the Courts.
In GUMMADI USHA RANI & ANR. Vs SURE MALLIKARJUNA RAO & ANR. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7575/2026 heard on 27.02.2026) the Supreme Court had to look into the process followed by Trial Court in dismissing the objections of the defendants in a suit. The Trial Court was found to have relied on certain judgments which appeared to have been AI generated. While the High Court later on had considered the objections 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, the Supreme Court pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition noted thus – “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.” Consequently, it issued notices to the Ld. Attorney General, Ld. Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India.
In Marhabba Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, decided on 20-2-2026)the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was confronted with the issue of Quasi Judicial Authorities apparently relying on either non-existing Judgments or Judgments existing but not even remotely being connected to the subject matter under discussion. The Court found that this was an appropriate case, wherein some directions were called for regulating/prescribing some parameters for quasi-judicial authorities while placing reliance on the judgements either of the High Courts or of the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with legal issues raised by an assessee.
In J.M. Jain Vs Union of India – decided on 27-11-2025) the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was looking into SCN being issued in GST post an investigation conducted under the Income Tax law. The Court based on the Judgments cited from Revenue end was of the view that there can be no doubt that technological tools, such as Artificial Intelligence, may be used by Government Departments for analysis of evidence, preparation of summaries etc., subject to proper verification. However, there can also be no doubt that there cannot be any fake or non-existent judgments that can be cited by the Department.
There were discrepancies in the judgments which were cited by the GST Department. The GST Department and even other Departments, including the IT Department ought to have been careful while citing judicial precedents in that manner, specially if the same had been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence software, as there was a clear possibility of the citations themselves being fake, as was clear from one of the judgments, which was cited in the SCN.
In that regard, various High Courts had cautioned against using Artificial Intelligence while citing case laws. Recently, a Coordinate Bench of Bombay High Court in KMG Wires (P.) Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre -decided on 06.10.2025, while deciding a challenge to an Assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the IT Act had quashed the Assessment order and recorded as under:
“[…]
9. On the second issue of addition of peak balances in respect of loans from directors, it can be be seen that while calculating peak balance, Respondent No. 1 has considered the opening balance, and for which purpose, he has relied upon three decisions. The judicial decisions relied upon are completely non-existent. In other words, there are no such decisions at all which are sought to be relied upon by Respondent No. 1. It is for Respondent No. 1 to show from where such decisions were fetched. In this era of Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’), one tends to place much reliance on the results thrown open by the system. However, when one is exercising quasi judicial functions, it goes without saying that such results [which are thrown open by AI] are not to be blindly relied upon, but the same should be duly cross verified before using them. Otherwise mistakes like the present one creep in. It is also one of the grievances of the Petitioner that they are clueless as to how the figures are arrived at as no basis or working was ever shown to the Petitioner, nor was any Show Cause Notice issued before making the addition of peak balance. Even this grievance of the Petitioner is justified.”
Even in the context of an IP infringement matter, the Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 583/2023 decided on 22.08.2023, titled Christian Louboutin SAS v. Shoe Boutique had cautioned against the usage of Artificial Intelligence in adjudication of legal issues and placing reliance on incorrect responses by Artificial Intelligence. The order dated 22nd August, 2023 records as under:
“[…]
28. The above responses from ChatGPT as also the one relied upon by the Plaintiffs shows that the said tool cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbots such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors including the nature and structure of query put by the user, the training data etc. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data etc. generated by AI chatbots. Accuracy and reliability of AI generated data is still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that, at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either the human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best the tool could be utilised for a preliminary understanding or for preliminary research and nothing more”
The Delhi High Court was therefore of the view that the above-mentioned judicial precedents clearly demonstrated the risk of Artificial Intelligence hallucinating, by citing fake and non-existent judgments. Under such circumstances, the GST Department as well as the IT Department must exercise utmost caution while citing judgements and must take full responsibility in case the same is cited or generated by using Artificial Intelligence softwares. Moreover, before issuing SCNs or finalising assessments, all judgments ought to be verified.
Very recently the Supreme Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025 decided on July 2, 2026) had to deal with NCLT relying on some non-existent Judgments and some AI-generated paragraphs in deciding a matter. This was in a case involving corporate guarantor’s liabilities towards a bank when the borrower had transferred its liabilities under a scheme of amalgamation and renewed sanction letter was claimed not to mention guarantee details. The Supreme Court concluded that Judicial process and the judgment under challenge were tainted by the usage of materials which were said to be precedents, but in reality, they were unreal, fake, and did not exist at all. 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.
The Court was of the view that it was necessary for Courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification. It was a misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verification. Equally, it was a serious lapse if a judge relied on such a fake or hallucinated AI-generated material as precedents in support of the determination. The Court had no hesitation in declaring that such a decision was no decision in the eyes of the law, irrespective of whether such material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decision-making. Such decisions were to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material entered the decision-making process, as it would violate the sanctity of adjudication. It was absolutely necessary to maintain integrity in decision-making, and the Court reiterated and declared zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material. It was also clarified that the Supreme Court’s 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.
As per the Court, if thinking is delegated and it forms a habit, it will have serious consequences for the core of human existence, which lies in its capacity to think – to discern the distinction between what is right and what is wrong, truth and falsehood, virtue and vice, dharma and adharma. This capability is neither given nor superimposed by birth, but arises from a deliberate, disciplined, and systematic training of the mind alongside lived experiences; it is a battle of the mind against bewitchment caused by the uncertainties between fact and fiction, what is real and what is unreal, propriety and impropriety, as well as what is just and unjust.
The Court was also aware that the control lay in being two steps ahead of its application and in making deliberate choices about when and where to apply. The Court was aware that this was not an issue that could be resolved through judicial orders and declaratory judgments, but only through Public Policy and enforceable Rules and Regulations. The real success was, however, not in the making of the Rule or Regulation, but to be found in the power of the will of the Bar as well as the Bench, to harness that science and apply it with care and caution.
The Court directed the Bar Council of India, being the apex statutory body, to constitute a committee and deliberate on the issue of members of the bar submitting such fake and hallucinated material before the Court as if they were precedents of law. The Bar Council was required to take up the 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.
The Supreme Court at the same time, also noted that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), a body created under the United Kingdom Legal Services Act 2007, has approved in 2025, the first purely Artificial Intelligence-driven law firm named Garfield Law Limited (GLA), to provide regulated legal services. Further, that AI law firm (GLA) is now reported to have successfully navigated the legal system, securing a county court decree in a suit for recovery of unpaid fee. The result can be gratifying, even inspiring; yet if left unregulated, Artificial Intelligence may infiltrate our intellectual work ethic and, before long, render us dependent on its vast capabilities.
The issue of unverified usage of AI has also come up before the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice United Kingdom in The King on the Application of Frederick Ayinde Vs The London Borough of Haringey & Hamad Al-Haroun Vs Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC. (Case Nos: AC-2024-LON-003062 and CL-2024-000435 with citation [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)) decided on 23rd May 2025. The referral to the Divisional Court in UK was under the Court’s Hamid Jurisdiction. The referrals arose out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which were not then checked, resulting in false information being put before the court.
The issue in the first case was citing of non-existent cases by the Counsel for the claimant of accommodation in a case against the defendant which led to a wasted costs order at lower level against the Counsel for the claimant. There was also a referral to the professional regulator. The second case involved usage of artificial intelligence for citing cases by the claimant of damages from the bank for alleged breach of financing agreement. The usage of AI was admitted to by the claimant himself. The cases cited had not been verified by the Counsel for the claimant independently. The Court here agreed to self-referral by the Counsel to the professional regulator to review his processes.
The Court opined that those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work (to advise clients or before a court, for example). Authoritative sources include the Government’s database of legislation, the National Archives database of court judgments, the official Law Reports published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales and the databases of reputable legal publishers. This duty rests on lawyers who use artificial intelligence to conduct research themselves or rely on the work of others who have done so. This is no different from the responsibility of a lawyer who relies on the work of a trainee solicitor or a pupil barrister for example, or on information obtained from an internet search. Placing false material before the court with the intention that the court treats it as genuine may, depending on the person’s state of knowledge, amount to a contempt. That is because it deliberately interferes with the administration of justice. This could even compel the Court to refer the matter to the Regulator.
The Court went on to further state that there are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused. In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities (such as heads of chambers and managing partners) and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services. Those measures must ensure that every individual currently providing legal services within this jurisdiction (whenever and wherever they were qualified to do so) understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using artificial intelligence. For the future, in Hamid hearings such as these, the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled.
The Court also looked at some of the other cases which had come up before Courts across the world to summarise the principles for easy reference. It has noted in particular the principles laid down in Ko v Li [2025] ONSC 2766 before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. These are – (1) All lawyers have duties to the court, to their clients, and to the administration of justice (2) It is the lawyer’s duty to faithfully represent the law to the court. (3) It is the lawyer’s duty not to fabricate case precedents and not to mis-cite cases for propositions that they do not support. (4) It is the lawyer’s duty to use technology, conduct legal research, and prepare court documents competently (5) It is the lawyer’s duty to supervise staff and review material prepared for her signature. (6) It is the lawyer’s duty to ensure human review of materials prepared by non-human technology such as generative artificial intelligence. (7) It should go without saying that it is the lawyer’s duty to read cases before submitting them to a court as precedential authorities. At its barest minimum, it is the lawyer’s duty not to submit case authorities that do not exist or that stand for the opposite of the lawyer’s submission. (8) It is the litigation lawyer’s most fundamental duty not to mislead the court.
Conclusion:
As the Supreme Court has rightly observed, dependency on technology has never been a problem for the dispensation of justice, as our courts have seamlessly absorbed technologies and made them an integral part of court systems. The story of AI, as it is unfolding, is, however, different, in fact, transformative, as it is not just an aid to assist us in our work, but is an alternative to our own thinking, reasoning and even decision making. This is where we need to be extra cautious, as unregulated use of AI will insidiously enter legal practice, the process of judicial decision-making and decision-making itself. In short if we are to sum up, those looking to use AI have to make judicious use of it along with ensuring proper mechanisms are put in place to verify outcomes and to avoid inaccuracies which can have legal ramifications.
Author Bio
