Supreme Court says AI-generated hallucinated precedents ‘catastrophic’ to judicial process, sets aside NCLT order - The Hindu

You are logged in<br>Loading...<br>LOGOUTYou don’t have any Active Subscription.<br>Subscribe nowSubscribed with another email? Logout and Login with that one.

Your active subscription(s)

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials,<br>Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Products you've access to

Additional Subscription Benefits

eBooks<br>Webinars<br>Newsletters<br>Games<br>Account Settings<br>Go to My Account<br>Bookmarks<br>Manage Subscriptions

Need help with your subscription?<br>customersupport@thehindu.co.in<br>1800 102 1878

Supreme Court says AI-generated hallucinated precedents ‘catastrophic’ to judicial process, sets aside NCLT order

The top court also directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee to examine the issue and formulate appropriate norms<br>Updated - July 02, 2026 04:56 pm IST - New Delhi

Aaratrika Bhaumik

READ LATER<br>SEE ALL

Remove

“It is necessary for Courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification,” the Supreme Court verdict said. (Image used for representational purpose only)<br>| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Observing that the use of non-existent or AI-generated hallucinated judicial precedents is “catastrophic” to the judicial process, the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 2, 2026) set aside an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) after finding that it had relied on fictitious AI-generated case laws.

Artificial Intelligence in judiciary must not replace human mind and judgment: Justice Gavai

A Bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe underscored that courts must adopt a “zero-tolerance” approach towards the reliance on AI-generated precedents without independent verification as it “contaminates” the very “lifeblood of judicial determination”.<br>“...Even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, it would violate the sanctity of adjudication. It is absolutely necessary to maintain integrity in decision-making, and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material,” the Bench observed.<br>‘Subverts rule of law’<br>While acknowledging that “increased workloads of modern life” have compelled lawyers and judges to adapt to artificial intelligence to improve efficiency, the Bench underlined that meaningful human oversight must remain integral to every stage of the adjudicatory process. It cautioned against AI-generated hallucinations quietly permeating legal practice, warning that reliance on fictitious precedents “subverts the rule of law”.<br>Editorial | Data and justice: On courts in India and AI tools<br>“For us, i.e., for those in the province of adjudication and determination of disputes, this by-product 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,” the Bench said.<br>The Bench also observed that the advent of artificial intelligence calls for “deeper collaboration” between the Bar and the Bench to harness the technology while ensuring that it is deployed with care and caution. It noted that the process had already begun with the top court publishing the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, for public consultation.<br>The draft regulations provide that AI systems may function only in an assistive capacity and cannot supplant the role of judges. They also require disclosure of AI-assisted filings and prohibit the use of AI in judicial decision-making, including in matters relating to sentencing and the grant or denial of bail.

Draft Supreme Court rules prohibit use of AI for judicial outcomes, witness profiling

BCI asked to frame norms<br>Cautioning against an over-reliance on artificial intelligence, the judges observed that cultivating a “habit” of delegating “thinking” to machines could have serious consequences for the very “core of human existence”. They pointed out that the capacity for reasoning is shaped through “deliberate, disciplined, and systematic training” of the mind, and cautioned that these uniquely human attributes must not be relinquished.<br>To address the growing instances of AI-generated hallucinated precedents being cited before courts, the Bench directed the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex statutory body regulating the legal profession, to constitute a committee to examine the issue and formulate appropriate norms.<br>“The Bar Council must take up this issue with utmost seriousness, deliberate earnestly, and prescribe a guiding principle to prevent such occurrences, along with the disciplinary action that will follow a violation of the norms,” the Bench said.

The bench has spoken on...