The Supreme Court on Friday stressed that advocates must verify the authenticity of judgments before citing them in court. The observation came after a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was found to contain references to non-existent and incorrectly quoted judgments.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the SLP. The Court also cautioned members of the Bar to exercise due diligence while relying on judicial precedents.
Fake and Misquoted Judgments
Counsel for the respondent informed the Court that one of the judgments cited in the petition did not exist. It was further pointed out that certain other judgments were real, but the quotations attributed to them did not appear in those decisions.
The Bench took serious note of the lapse.
Court’s Observations on Artificial Intelligence
Justice Nagarathna remarked that the rise of artificial intelligence has created an additional responsibility for both lawyers and judges. They must ensure that the authorities relied upon are genuine and not fabricated or “deep fakes.”
She observed:
“What is this? Is this artificial intelligence or natural intelligence? Artificial intelligence is a different thing but natural intelligence doing this we cannot condone. Because of artificial intelligence the lawyers and the judges, we have an additional duty to see whether it is a real or deep fake.”
Duty of Lawyers to Cross-Verify
When questioned, the petitioner’s counsel stated that he had drafted the petition and sourced the judgments from articles on websites.
Justice Bhuyan responded, “You should have cross verified. That is the duty of the lawyer.”
Justice Nagarathna advised advocates to consult original sources instead of relying on secondary material. “Don’t go by articles, go to the real judgement and verify,” she said. She added that official citations such as ILR for High Courts and SCR for the Supreme Court are available for reference.
Final Order
After the petitioner’s counsel tendered an apology, the Bench dismissed the SLP. The Court reiterated that advocates must cross-check authorities before citing them.
Justice Nagarathna also requested Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh, who was present in court, to consider addressing the issue. “What to do about this problem? You have a conference on this. This is an additional burden on lawyers and judges now,” she observed.
The matter stands disposed of with a caution to the legal fraternity regarding the need for greater vigilance in verifying judicial authorities.
