New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken serious note of a trial court allegedly relying on Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated “non-existent and fake” judgments while deciding a civil dispute, observing that such conduct has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process and may amount to misconduct.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the matter raised “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”.
The apex court was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had upheld a trial court order in a property dispute involving a suit for injunction. The petitioners before the Supreme Court are defendants in a suit for injunction filed by the respondents.
During the pendency of the suit, the trial court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the physical features of the property. The petitioners had objected to the Commissioner’s report, but the trial court rejected their objections while relying on several Supreme Court precedents.
Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioners contended that the judgments cited and relied upon by the trial court were “non-existent and fake orders”.
The AP High Court noted that the cited decisions were AI-generated and issued a word of caution, but proceeded to decide the matter on the merits and dismissed the civil revision petition.
Taking cognisance of the issue, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the reliance on “non-existent and fake” judgments by the trial court in judicial decision-making.
“We take cognisance 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 the integrity of the adjudicatory process,” the Justice Narasimha-led Bench said.
“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,” the apex court added.
Issuing notice in the matter, returnable on March 10, the top court directed that, pending disposal of the SLP, the trial court “shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s Report”.
The Supreme Court also issued notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General – the top law officers of the Centre, and the Bar Council of India (BCI). Further, the bench appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist the apex court in the matter, granting him liberty to nominate an Advocate-on-Record for assistance. The matter will now be taken up on March 10.
(IANS)
