The Supreme Court on Thursday declared “zero tolerance” towards AI-generated “fake and hallucinated” judicial citations submitted in courts, asking the Bar Council of India (BCI) to curb the menace and initiate disciplinary action against advocates and others relying on such documents.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the concurrent judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) in a corporate dispute. The orders had relied on “AI-generated fake, hallucinated and non-existent judgments of the Supreme Court”.
“For us, i.e., for those in the province of adjudication and determination of disputes, this byproduct of AI, i.e., the production of fake, non-existent and hallucinated material and its utilisation as precedents in law, is like the release of methyl isocyanate in the province of law and justice: invisible, insidious and catastrophic by the time anyone notices. It not only contaminates but takes away the very lifeblood of judicial determination.
“It is necessary for courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification. It is a misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verification. Equally, it is a serious lapse if a judge relies on such a fake or hallucinated AI-generated material as precedents in support of the determination,” the court said.
It added: “...Such decisions are to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, as it would violate the sanctity of adjudication.”
The bench directed the Bar Council of India, the official regulator for legal education and lawyers, to constitute a committee and deliberate on members of the Bar submitting fake materials before the court by passing them off as precedents of law.
The court passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Pooja Ramesh Singh, a suspended director of Essel Infraprojects Ltd (EIL), the corporate guarantor of the original borrower, Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd (PIUDCL).
PIUDCL had taken a loan from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited. After PIUDCL defaulted on repayment, the bank and other creditors initiated insolvency proceedings against it and Essel.
NCLT Mumbai admitted the corporate insolvency resolution process, following which Singh appealed before NCLAT, challenging the proceedings against the guarantor on the ground that following an earlier “demerger” agreement, there was no further liability of the guarantor towards PIUDCL.
NCLAT dismissed her appeal by relying on NCLT judgments, which had cited non-existent judgments of the Supreme Court.