The Supreme Court recently warned that the practice of citing non-existent judgments generated through artificial intelligence has become a “menace” not only in India but across the world. The Court urged parties to exercise caution while using AI tools in legal proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi made the observation while hearing a special leave petition filed by the Director of a company seeking expunction of remarks made by the Bombay High Court in a matter arising under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Bombay High Court Flagged Non-Existent Citation
In an order dated January 7, the Bombay High Court recorded in paragraph 22 that the appellant’s submissions appeared to have been generated using ChatGPT or a similar AI tool. The High Court pointed to several “give-away features”, including green-box tick marks, bullet-point marks and repetitive submissions.
It specifically referred to one alleged judgment, Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates, for which the respondent provided neither a citation nor a copy of the decision. The High Court noted that both the Court and its law clerks had made considerable efforts to locate the case but could not trace it, resulting in a waste of precious judicial time.
The High Court observed:
“The Respondent has filed written submissions in February 2025 and April 2025. From the overall tenor of the written submissions and a few give-away features, such as green-box tick-marks, bulletpoint-marks, repetitive submissions etc., this Court strongly feels that the submissions are prepared using an AI tool such as Chat GPT or alike. A strong pointer is seen from a reference made to one alleged caselaw “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”. Neither citation is given nor a copy of judgment is supplied by the Respondent. This Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out this caselaw but could not find. This has resulted in waste of precious judicial time.”
High Court Warned Against Dumping Irrelevant Material
The Bombay High Court made it clear that parties may use AI tools to assist research, but they must cross-check every reference and every material such tools generate.
The High Court further observed:
“This practice of dumping documents / submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud. This is not assistance to the Court. This is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice. This Court will not take such practices kindly and it is going to result in costs. If an advocate is found to be indulging in such practice, then even stricter action of referring to Bar Council may follow.”
Justice MM Sathaye then imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant and directed him to pay the amount to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
Supreme Court Expunged Remarks but Issued Caution
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the remarks to be expunged. At the same time, it recorded a note of caution and declined to examine the petitioner’s explanation that he had never cited the alleged judgment.
The Bench stated:
“Though, he tried to explain that he never cited that judgment, however, at the present we are not going into that issue. As a matter of indulgence, we expunge the remarks made in the aforesaid paragraph. However, the fact remains that this menace is rampant in all Courts now, not only in India rather throughout the world. Everyone needs to be careful about this. In fact, this Court is already seized of this matter on judicial side.”
With these observations, the Court disposed of the special leave petition.
Supreme Court Already Seized of Similar Issue
The Bench also noted that another Bench of the Supreme Court has already taken cognisance of the issue after a trial court judgment cited AI-generated fake authorities.
Several Supreme Court judges have repeatedly flagged the risks of using AI tools in legal drafting when such tools generate fabricated citations and quotations.
Case Details
Case Title: HEART AND SOUL ENTERTAINMENT LTD. v. DEEPAK S/O SHIVKUMAR BAHRY
Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3090/2026
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s): Petitioner-in-person (through VC)
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Janay Jain, Adv.; Mr. Rishabh Jadhav, Adv.; Mr. Sameer, Adv.; Mr. Pranav Sarthi, AOR.
Also Read: SC Rejects NHAI Solation Review Plea.
