Supreme Court flags rising use of unverified AI inputs in court filings

Supreme Court has cautioned against unverified AI-generated material in filings after spotting fictitious and inaccurate citations, reminding lawyers that accuracy must be ensured

The Supreme Court on Tuesday flagged the unverified use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in court filings, after encountering petitions that relied on judgments and quotations that were either inaccurate or entirely fictitious.

 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and BV Nagarathna said it had begun noticing pleadings that appeared to have been prepared using AI platforms without adequate human scrutiny.

 

“We have been alarmingly told that some lawyers have started using AI for drafting,” the CJI observed during the hearing.

 

Justice Nagarathna referred to a matter in which a non-existent precedent had been cited before the court.

 

“There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist,” she said, pointing out the risks of relying blindly on automated tools.

 

The CJI added that a similar situation had arisen in proceedings before Justice Dipankar Datta, where authorities cited in support of arguments were found to be fictitious.

 

“There was something with Justice Dipankar Datta also. All precedents cited never existed,” he remarked.

 

The Bench also noted instances where genuine Supreme Court rulings were invoked, but accompanied by extracts that did not form part of the actual judgment.

 

“Then some are citing real Supreme Court cases, but those quoted portions do not even exist in the judgment,” Justice Nagarathna pointed out.

 

The observations reflect a wider institutional concern about the increasing use of AI in legal drafting and research.

 

In recent months, courts have encountered filings, and in some cases even draft orders, that referred to authorities not traceable in official law reports or court databases. This has prompted repeated judicial reminders that technological assistance cannot replace professional diligence.

 

Judges have emphasised that while digital tools may aid research and case management, the obligation to ensure accuracy remains with members of the Bar and the Bench.

 

Every citation, quotation and proposition of law, the court indicated, must be verified against authentic and authorised sources before being presented on record.