AI-Generated Fake Precedents in Indian Courts: Supreme Court Declares Citation of Fictitious Cases Is Misconduct

India's Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a growing problem in the country's judicial system: the citation of fictitious case laws generated by artificial intelligence tools. On 27 February 2026, a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notices to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General of India, and the Bar Council of India, following the discovery that a trial court in Andhra Pradesh had based a judicial order on four fabricated judgments. The Court made clear that submitting AI-generated fake precedents is not a mere error but constitutes professional misconduct.

What Are AI Hallucinations in Legal Filings

Large language model AI tools, when asked to summarise case law or draft legal arguments, sometimes generate plausible-sounding but entirely fictitious citations. The AI produces a case name, court, year, and even a purported ratio decidendi, none of which correspond to any real judgment. This phenomenon is known as hallucination. In India, courts are now encountering litigants who submit AI-drafted petitions without independently verifying the precedents cited. The risk is not limited to generalist tools; even legal-sector AI assistants can produce fabricated citations when queried about obscure or niche legal questions.

The Cases That Prompted Supreme Court Action

The trigger for the Supreme Court's suo motu action on 27 February 2026 was an order passed by an Andhra Pradesh trial court that relied on four AI-generated judgments, none of which existed. In a separate incident, Justice B.V. Nagarathna encountered a reference to a fictitious case titled Mercy v. Mankind while hearing a Public Interest Litigation. In December 2024, the Bengaluru bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed an order in the Buckeye Trust case citing three Supreme Court judgments and one Madras High Court ruling, none of which were real; the ITAT recalled that order within a week after the error was identified.

The Supreme Court's Position: Misconduct, Not Mere Error

The bench made clear that basing a judicial decision on fake judgments is not merely an error in legal reasoning but constitutes misconduct that may invite serious legal consequences. Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed strong disapproval of the practice of filing AI-drafted petitions without verification. The Court's notices to the Bar Council of India suggest that formal disciplinary guidelines for AI use in legal practice are under consideration. High courts across India have been routinely catching litigants attempting to pass off AI hallucinations as binding precedent.

Practical Takeaways for Legal Professionals

Every practitioner who uses AI tools for legal research must independently verify each citation before filing. No AI tool can substitute for searching a primary source database: the Supreme Court's official portal, SCC Online, Manupatra, or Indian Kanoon. Any citation that cannot be verified in a primary source must be removed from the filing. Submitting an AI-generated case citation that turns out to be non-existent exposes the advocate to professional disciplinary proceedings. The advocate who signs and files the document bears full responsibility for its accuracy, regardless of what tool was used to draft it.