Delhi HC Flags Possible AI Use in Trial Court Judgment Against Akasa Air

In a significant development that raises fundamental questions about the integrity of judicial reasoning, the Delhi High Court in February 2026 flagged the possible use of artificial intelligence in drafting a trial court judgment. The case, RFA(COMM) 284/2026, arose from a commercial dispute between SNS Airways Private Limited (operating as Akasa Air) and a travel company. The appellate bench, while hearing the appeal, noted serious discrepancies in the impugned judgment that suggested portions may have been generated using AI tools rather than composed through independent judicial analysis.

Background of the Dispute

The underlying dispute was a commercial suit (CS COMM 322/2024) filed in a Delhi trial court. The case involved claims related to contractual obligations between SNS Airways Private Limited, the entity behind the airline brand Akasa Air, and the opposing party. The trial court delivered its judgment, which was subsequently challenged before the Delhi High Court in an appeal filed as RFA(COMM) 284/2026. It was during the appellate proceedings that the integrity of the trial court's reasoning came under scrutiny.

What the Delhi High Court Found

The appellant submitted a tabulated chart highlighting discrepancies in the case laws relied upon by the trial court in its judgment. The chart pointed to citations that appeared inaccurate, references to legal propositions that did not correspond to the cited decisions, and structural patterns in the judgment's language that raised red flags. The Delhi High Court took note of these discrepancies and observed that the judgment appeared to contain hallmarks consistent with AI-generated content, including citation errors where cases were referenced but did not support the propositions attributed to them.

Supreme Court's Intervention and Broader Implications

The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court of India, which recognised the gravity of the issue beyond the individual case. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Bar Council of India to examine the systemic implications of AI use in judicial decision-making. This intervention signalled that the Court viewed the issue not merely as a one-off irregularity but as a matter requiring institutional safeguards. The Supreme Court's concern extended to the broader question of how the judiciary should regulate or respond to the growing availability of generative AI tools that can produce legal text, draft judgments, and generate case citations, sometimes inaccurately.

The Problem of AI Hallucinations in Legal Writing

One of the most dangerous characteristics of AI-generated legal text is the phenomenon known as hallucination: the AI produces citations, case names, or legal principles that appear plausible but are entirely fabricated or materially inaccurate. Unlike a human lawyer or judge who might misremember a citation but would typically get the core principle correct, AI tools can generate entirely fictitious case references with convincing formatting. In the Akasa Air matter, the discrepancies flagged by the appellant included precisely this type of error, where the cited cases did not support the legal propositions for which they were referenced. This poses a unique threat to judicial integrity because a judgment that relies on non-existent or misrepresented precedent undermines the foundation of reasoned adjudication.

Regulatory Vacuum and the Road Ahead

India does not currently have any formal regulation governing the use of AI in judicial proceedings. There are no guidelines from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, or the Bar Council of India that specifically address whether and how judges, lawyers, or court staff may use AI tools in the preparation of legal documents or judgments. The Chief Justice of India has spoken about AI's potential to improve access to justice and reduce pendency, but these observations have been aspirational rather than regulatory. The Akasa Air episode exposes the gap between technological adoption and institutional oversight. Without clear rules, there is no mechanism to detect AI-generated content in judgments, no obligation to disclose the use of such tools, and no accountability framework for errors introduced through reliance on AI.

Key Takeaways

The Akasa Air case is likely to become a landmark reference point in India's evolving relationship with AI in the legal system. First, it establishes that appellate courts will scrutinise lower court judgments for signs of AI reliance, particularly where citation accuracy is in question. Second, the Supreme Court's decision to issue notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India suggests that formal guidelines or regulations may follow. Third, the case serves as a cautionary example for judges and lawyers who use AI tools without independently verifying the output. The integrity of judicial reasoning depends on judges applying their own mind to the facts and law before them. Tools that generate text, however sophisticated, cannot substitute for the exercise of judicial discretion and independent legal analysis that the Constitution requires of every judge.