Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has taken serious note of an allegation that a rejoinder filed before it included more than 100 fictitious or possibly ‘AI-generated case laws’, prompting the Court to examine whether pleadings are being supported by fabricated jurisprudence.
What is the Allegation?
During a hearing in an insolvency case involving Gstaad Hotels Pvt Ltd, the senior lawyer for Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd told the Supreme Court that Gstaad’s promoter, Deepak Raheja, had filed a rejoinder containing many case laws that do not exist in any official records.
The lawyer said that several of these supposed judgments, shown as references on criminal law and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), turned out to be completely fake after verification. Some appeared to be created by generative AI tools or taken from unreliable sources. In a few places, the same “judgment” was used to support multiple legal arguments, and the facts mentioned from these cases did not match the real issues in the dispute.
Supreme Court’s Reaction and Legal Concerns
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the objection and expressed serious concern. The Court orally remarked that if it is found that the citations are indeed fabricated or artificially generated, “hallucinated” by AI, it will “come down heavily” on those responsible. The matter is now listed for further hearing on 8 December 2025.
Why This Matter is Huge for Legal Practice
The issue has raised important concerns about how artificial intelligence is being used in legal research and drafting and how much trust lawyers and courts can place in legal citations. A judgement of a case is dependent on precedents, but if the cases which are cited by the lawyers are false then it will be very difficult for the judges to give fair judgement.
Purely relying on AI tools is very risky because it may sometimes generate judgements which look genuine but are actually false. If such case laws are used without proper checking, they can easily mislead the court, waste valuable time, and ultimately harm justice. This makes it even more important for lawyers to verify every citation they include in their pleadings.
Even though AI can make legal research faster, it is still the responsibility of the lawyer to ensure that the information is correct.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has made it clear that though AI has become an important part of the legal field, but ‘AI-generated case laws’ must be rechecked if it has generated an imaginary case or the case is real. It is the responsibility of a lawyer to verify the facts before submitting it in the court. AI tools should be used as a junior to help you and not as a senior on whom you may rely entirely.
About Author:
Ruchi Dalmia holds an LL.M. in Corporate Law and is building her career in the corporate legal field. She possesses strong skills in contract drafting, paralegal work, and legal research. Passionate about Corporate and Commercial Laws, she enjoys exploring how legal principles operate within real-world business contexts. Through her writing, Ruchi strives to make complex legal topics clear, practical, and accessible for readers.