In a hearing that raised serious concerns about the integrity of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court of India took note of a troubling development - a trial court relying on AI-generated, non-existent judgments while deciding a civil dispute.
The matter came up in a Special Leave Petition filed by Gummadi Usha Rani and another against an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Background of the Case
The dispute began with a civil suit for injunction filed by the respondents. During the pendency of the case, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and report on the physical features of the property.
The petitioners objected to the Commissioner’s report. However, on August 19, 2025, the Trial Court dismissed their objections. In doing so, it cited four Supreme Court decisions.
The petitioners later argued that these cited judgments were “non-existent and fake,” claiming they were generated using Artificial Intelligence tools.
When the matter reached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the judges acknowledged that the cited judgments did not exist and appeared to be AI-generated. The High Court recorded a word of caution but proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition, thereby affirming the Trial Court’s order.
Unhappy with this outcome, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe expressed “considerable institutional concern.” The Court clarified that the issue was not merely about a wrong decision, but about the process adopted in reaching that decision.
The Bench observed that a ruling based on
“non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in decision-making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow.”
The Court said such conduct directly affects the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
Read also:- Madurai Airport Expansion: High Court Allows Eviction, Says No Right to Rehab Under 2013 Land Law
The Supreme Court issued notice in the case and directed that, until further orders, the Trial Court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
The Court also issued notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and the Bar Council of India, and appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist the Court in examining the larger issue of accountability.
Case Title:- Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.
Case Number:- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7575 of 2026
Date of Order:- 27 February 2026
