In what the Supreme Court has identified as the first known instance of artificial intelligence being misused in India’s judicial process, a litigant submitted a rejoinder containing hundreds of fabricated case citations generated through AI tools. The development has sparked concern within legal circles about the risks of unverified AI-assisted drafting in courts.
Bench expresses concern over fabricated case laws
The issue came to light before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih, where senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul pointed out that the rejoinder filed in the matter cited numerous cases that were either entirely fake or misrepresented.
Kaul, representing Omkara Asset Reconstruction, said that while a few case names existed, the legal principles attributed to them were “fabricated using AI tools”. Such misuse, he warned, could severely compromise judicial proceedings, especially since judges routinely handle 70–80 cases in a day.
“If the court relies on AI-generated falsehood, it would be disastrous for the judicial system,” he said.
‘Never been more embarrassed,’ says senior counsel
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for Deepak Raheja, promoter of Gstaad Hotels Bengaluru, admitted the error and expressed deep regret.
“I have never been more embarrassed,” Sundaram said as he read out an affidavit filed by the advocate-on-record (AoR), who tendered an unconditional apology and sought permission to withdraw the erroneous response.
The AoR admitted that the document had been drafted with assistance from the litigant, who had used AI tools without understanding the consequences.
Supreme Court refuses to dismiss issue lightly
The bench emphasised that it “cannot simply brush it aside”, noting the wider implications for truth, accuracy and institutional trust.
The court questioned why the advocate-on-record alone should bear responsibility when the affidavit clearly stated that the litigant had guided the drafting.
Despite the procedural irregularity, the Supreme Court proceeded to hear the matter on merit, signalling that the case itself would not be sidelined due to the controversy.
AI misuse raises broader concerns in legal system
Legal experts note that generative AI tools have become easily accessible but lack the safeguards required for high-stakes legal documentation. They warn that:
- AI models sometimes generate “hallucinated” case citations
- Misrepresenting judicial precedents can mislead courts
- Verification mechanisms must become far stricter
- Lawyers and litigants require awareness of responsible AI use
The incident echoes global concerns, including a recent US case where lawyers were reprimanded for submitting AI-generated fictitious citations.
Case background: Omkara vs Gstaad Hotels
The controversy emerged in the midst of a high-profile dispute between Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Gstaad Hotels Private Limited, which reached the Supreme Court after proceedings before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
While the SC has not yet commented on whether punitive measures will be considered, the case marks a critical moment in India’s judicial adaptation to rapidly evolving AI technologies.
Legal scholars say it may push courts to develop new protocols for AI-assisted filings, mandatory verification of citations, and training modules for advocates.
As India’s legal system increasingly encounters digital tools, the Supreme Court’s response is expected to set the tone for responsible AI use in judicial processes nationwide.