Supreme Court Raises Alarm Over AI-Generated Fake Judgments in Legal Proceedings
Supreme Court's Stance on AI-Generated Judgments
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has taken note of a trial court's reliance on purported non-existent verdicts generated through artificial intelligence (AI). The court stated that decisions based on such fabricated judgments do not merely reflect a mistake in judgment but constitute misconduct.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has indicated its intention to thoroughly investigate the matter, issuing notices to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and the Bar Council of India.
Additionally, senior advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court in this case.
The bench emphasized the importance of examining the implications and accountability of using AI-generated, fake judgments, as it directly impacts the integrity of the judicial process.
In its order dated February 27, the court asserted that relying on such non-existent judgments is not merely an error but a serious misconduct that warrants legal repercussions.
This issue arose while the Supreme Court was reviewing a plea that contested a January ruling from the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding an injunction suit.
The court highlighted that the case raises significant institutional concerns, not solely due to the merits of the decision but also regarding the adjudication process itself.
The court has instructed the attorney general, solicitor general, and the Bar Council of India to be notified.
It was noted that during the ongoing suit, the trial court had appointed an advocate-commissioner to document the physical characteristics of the disputed property.
The bench observed that the petitioners had raised objections against the advocate-commissioner's report.
In an order issued last August, the trial court dismissed these objections, relying on certain judgments.
The petitioners subsequently challenged this order, arguing that the referenced judgments were fabricated and non-existent.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the high court had recognized the objections and identified the judgments as AI-generated.
After issuing a cautionary note, the high court proceeded to rule on the merits of the case, ultimately dismissing the civil revision petition and upholding the trial court's decision.
Following this, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, contesting the high court's ruling.
The bench agreed to hear the petition and issued a notice.
Pending the resolution of the special leave petition, the court directed that the trial court should not act based on the advocate-commissioner's report and scheduled the next hearing for March 10.
In a separate case on February 17, Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed grave concerns regarding the increasing trend of lawyers submitting petitions drafted with AI tools that include fictitious judgments, such as Mercy vs Mankind.
These remarks were made during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to establish guidelines for political speeches.