The Supreme Court of India has declared a zero-tolerance policy against the submission of fake AI-generated judgments in courts, terming the practice as 'AI hallucinations in judiciary'. The bench directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to urgently constitute a committee to frame guidelines and disciplinary measures to prevent lawyers from citing such fabricated precedents.
Bench's Strong Stance on AI Misuse
A division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued the directive while hearing a contempt petition. The court expressed grave concern over the increasing instances where lawyers have submitted judgments generated by artificial intelligence tools, which are entirely fictitious and have no basis in actual legal records. The bench noted that such actions undermine the integrity of the judicial process and erode public trust.
'This is a serious matter. We cannot allow AI hallucinations to pollute our judicial system. There must be zero tolerance for such practices,' the bench observed, according to court records.
BCI Asked to Act Immediately
The Supreme Court directed the BCI to form a committee within two weeks to examine the issue and propose guidelines. The committee is expected to include experts in AI, legal ethics, and senior advocates. The court also asked the BCI to consider disciplinary action against lawyers found guilty of submitting fake AI-generated judgments, including suspension of license or debarment from practice.
The directive comes after an instance where an advocate submitted a judgment purportedly from the Supreme Court that was later found to be entirely fabricated by an AI chatbot. The court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the concerned lawyer.
Impact on Legal Profession
Legal experts have welcomed the move, stating that it is necessary to maintain the sanctity of legal proceedings. Senior advocate Arvind Datar said, 'The use of AI tools for legal research is acceptable, but blindly relying on AI-generated content without verification is dangerous. This judgment sends a strong message.'
The BCI chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, said the council will comply with the court's order and set up the committee promptly. He added that the BCI has already been working on a code of conduct for lawyers using AI tools.
According to a survey by the Bar Association of India, nearly 15% of young lawyers admitted to using AI tools for drafting arguments without verifying sources. The court's order is expected to curb such practices.
Broader Implications for AI in Judiciary
The Supreme Court's decision highlights the challenges posed by generative AI in the legal field. While AI can assist in research, the court emphasized that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of citations. The bench noted that similar issues have been reported in other jurisdictions, including the United States and the United Kingdom, where courts have imposed sanctions for citing fake AI cases.
The court also suggested that the BCI consider mandatory training for law students and practitioners on the ethical use of AI tools. The guidelines are expected to be framed within three months.
