Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Internal Action

India: Supreme Court says an Andhra Pradesh trial court dismissed defendants' objections citing AI-generated non-existent judgments, calling it misconduct

On 19 August 2025 a trial court in Andhra Pradesh hearing a suit for an injunction over a property dismissed the defendants' objections to an advocate-commissioner's report on the property, relying on four purported Supreme Court judgments that, according to the defendants and later the courts, do not exist. The defendants challenged the order in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which, as the Supreme Court recorded, realised the judgments were AI-generated, recorded a word of caution, and on 21 January 2026 dismissed their petition on the merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court said in an order of 27 February 2026 that it took cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments, that a decision based on such judgments is not an error in decision making but misconduct, and directed that the trial court not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report while the appeal is pending. In May 2026 the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to set up an expert panel on AI-generated fake judgments. The AI tool is not named, the sources read do not name the judge, and no outcome of the appeal had been reported in the sources read.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Occurred
19 Aug 2025
Reported
2 March 2026
Event location
India
What the AI did
Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Legal Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Justice
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts
4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 2 people

AI system as recorded: An unnamed AI tool that, according to the Supreme Court's order as reported, generated the non-existent judgments the trial court relied on in its order

Reported harm

According to the Supreme Court's order as reported, a trial court dismissed the defendants' objections in a property suit by relying on AI-generated non-existent judgments; the High Court upheld the order and the defendants had to appeal to the Supreme Court, which stayed reliance on the disputed report and called such a decision misconduct.

Outcome

Ongoing

On 27 February 2026 the Supreme Court directed that the trial court not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report pending the special leave petition and sought responses from the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India; on 5 May 2026 it asked the Bar Council of India to set up an expert panel and posted the matter for 26 May (The Tribune).

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tool produced the citations and who used it.
  • How many defendants there were and how the order affected the property dispute.
  • Whether the Supreme Court has decided the appeal or taken any action against the trial judge since May 2026.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The Supreme Court's 27 February 2026 order (read in its record of proceedings) takes cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments, and records that the High Court realised the judgments cited in the trial court's order were AI-generated. That AI output was the authority on which the trial court dismissed the defendants' objections. The tool and how it was used are not described in the sources read.

4 claims: 1 documented, 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported In August 2025 a trial court in Andhra Pradesh, in a property injunction suit, dismissed the defendants' objections to an advocate-commissioner's report, relying on four judgments cited as Supreme Court decisions.

Causal attribution. Facts of the order as recorded in the Supreme Court's order and relayed by the outlets.

  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The trial court passed an order in August 2025, dismissing the defendants' challenge to the Advocate Commissioner's report.'
  • dtnext.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It noted that the trial court, in its order passed in August last year, dismissed the objections and in the process, relied on certain judgments.'
  • tribuneindia.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The trial court had in August last year dismissed the objections, relying on Subramani v. M Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95'
  • livelaw.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'by its order dated 19.08.2025 dismissed the objection'
Reported The defendants challenged the order in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, contending that the cited judgments did not exist; the High Court realised the judgments were AI-generated but dismissed their petition on the merits, affirming the trial court.

Causal attribution. The AI-generated character of the citations is the High Court's and Supreme Court's characterisation as reported; the tool is not named.

  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'However, the defendants argued that these caselaws did not exist at all.'; 'The High Court too realized that the judgments cited in the trial court order were AI-generated. However, it eventually dismissed the defendants' petition on merits and affirmed the trial court's decision'
  • dtnext.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The top court noted that the high court had considered the objection and realised that the judgments were AI-generated.'
  • livelaw.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'relied on are non-existent and fake orders.'; 'The High Court considered the objection and realized that the judgments are Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated'
Documented On 27 February 2026 the Supreme Court took cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments, declared that a decision based on such judgments is misconduct rather than an error in decision making, and directed that the trial court not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report pending the appeal.

Causal attribution. The Supreme Court's own order (s4) establishes its cognisance, declaration and direction; outlets relay it.

  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability'; 'It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow,'
  • dtnext.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Pending disposal of the special leave petition, we direct that the trial court shall not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report,'
  • livelaw.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated'; 'the Trial Court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate'
Reported On 5 May 2026 the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to set up an expert panel on AI-generated non-existent judgments and posted the matter for 26 May.

Causal attribution. Later procedural development reported by The Tribune; no decision on the appeal is reported.

  • tribuneindia.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha told the BCI'; 'the Bench on May 5 clarified'; 'It posted the matter for further consideration on May 26.'

Sources

4 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-25 (AMP page, full article). Reports and quotes the Supreme Court's 27 February 2026 order. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-25 (PTI copy). Reports the same order; same independence group as Bar & Bench. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-10-25. Reports the 5 May 2026 hearing and restates the 27 February order. Applies to s3.

Read in English on 2026-10-25 from the order PDF hosted by LiveLaw (digitally signed record of proceedings, 3 pages). It is the order Bar & Bench and PTI report. Applies to s4.

Event countries: India. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: India.

The order was passed by a trial court in Andhra Pradesh, India, as Bar & Bench and The Tribune state; the sources do not say where the defendants live.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-25: Published as a court decision about private litigants informed by AI output: the Supreme Court's order, as reported, records that a trial court dismissed the defendants' objections relying on AI-generated non-existent judgments, and stayed reliance on the disputed report pending their appeal.

People described

Defendants in a property injunction suit before a trial court in Andhra Pradesh

People reported harmed in this case

At least 2 people

0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed

The Supreme Court's record of proceedings lists two petitioners (one named petitioner '& Anr.'), whom it describes as the defendants in the suit; whether other defendants exist is not stated, so 2 is a documented minimum. Names are not recorded.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#ai-generated-citations#trial-court-order#supreme-court-of-india#non-existent-judgments

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). India: Supreme Court says an Andhra Pradesh trial court dismissed defendants' objections citing AI-generated non-existent judgments, calling it misconduct. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-andhra-pradesh-trial-court-relied-on-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments-against-defendants-supreme-court-calls-it-misconduct

BibTeX

@misc{2025_andhra_pradesh_trial_court_relied_on_ai_generated_non_existent_judgments_against_defendants_supreme_court_calls_it_misconduct,
  title = {India: Supreme Court says an Andhra Pradesh trial court dismissed defendants' objections citing AI-generated non-existent judgments, calling it misconduct},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-andhra-pradesh-trial-court-relied-on-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments-against-defendants-supreme-court-calls-it-misconduct}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI tool

India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations

On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs

On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

Low Unidentified AI tool

São Luís (Brazil): Federal Police arrest Bar exam candidate they say used a phone linked to an AI tool to cheat

The Federal Police arrested a man in the act during the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) Exame de Ordem in São Luís, Maranhão, on Sunday 18 October 2026, according to the police account reported by Metrópoles and Migalhas. Police say officers sent to the exam venue after a criminal complaint about possible fraud found him using a mobile phone integrated with an artificial-intelligence tool to cheat. He was booked in the act for fraud in an exam of public interest and released after paying bail. Police said the investigation continues into the extent of the attempt and whether others took part. The reports do not name the AI tool, say whether it produced answers, or report an exam disqualification or charging decision.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents