Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Internal Action

India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments

In a judgment of 15 October 2026 dismissing two appeals against insolvency proceedings concerning two hotel-operating companies, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recorded that during the hearing the appellants' side had placed on record a compilation of judgments which, according to the respondents, was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments. The Court recorded that the appellants' advocate-on-record, when questioned, sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained, and that the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf. The Court had proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident but deleted that direction after being told that the first appellant had died. The judgment does not identify the disputed judgments, does not make its own finding that they were AI-generated, and does not name any AI tool.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool (suspected)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
15 October 2026
Event location
India
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional HarmReputational Harm
Whose AI use
AI role unknown
Setting
Justice
Evidence
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account
5 claims: 4 documented, 1 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
At least 1 person

AI system as recorded: No AI tool is named. The respondents said that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments; the Court recorded that objection and made no separate finding

What Happened

The compilation. Paragraph 74 of the Supreme Court's judgment of 15 October 2026 (2026 INSC 1134) records that, in the course of the hearing, a compilation of judgments was placed on record on behalf of the appellants and the respondents raised an immediate serious objection: according to them, the compilation was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments.

The Court's response. The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih recorded that the appellants' advocate-on-record, facing the Court's query, sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained. The appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on the appellants' behalf. The Court heard the appeals on their merits while keeping open the respondents' objection that the appellants did not deserve a hearing because of this conduct. Exemplary costs were proposed while the Court came down heavily on the appellants; the direction to pay costs was deleted after the Court was informed of the first appellant's death.

What is not established. The judgment records the AI-generation claim as the respondents' objection. It does not identify the disputed judgments, does not make its own finding that they were AI-generated or that they do not exist, and does not say who prepared the compilation or which tool, if any, was used. Bar and Bench notes that the judgment records no separate finding that particular judgments were AI-generated. The hearing date is not stated.

Reported harm

The Supreme Court criticised the appellants' advocate-on-record in a reportable judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over a compilation the respondents said contained AI-generated non-existent judgments; exemplary costs proposed against the appellants were later deleted (judgment, 15 October 2026).

Outcome

Resolved

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals on their merits and made no order as to costs. It recorded that exemplary costs had been proposed over the compilation but were deleted after it was informed of the first appellant's death. No referral or other disciplinary step against the advocate-on-record is reported.

What remains unknown

  • Which judgments in the compilation were disputed and whether they exist.
  • Whether an AI tool was used to prepare the compilation, which tool, and by whom.
  • The date of the hearing at which the objection was raised.
  • Whether any disciplinary step against the advocate-on-record followed.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: suspected. The harm is the Supreme Court's response to alleged AI use in a filing: the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments filed for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments, the Court questioned the appellants' lawyers about it, criticised the advocate-on-record in its judgment for shifting the blame onto the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The Court did not rely on the disputed judgments and made no finding that they were AI-generated, and no source names a tool or says who prepared the compilation, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption and the AI involvement as suspected.

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

Documented During the hearing, the respondents objected that a compilation of judgments placed on record for the appellants was replete with AI-generated non-existent judgments.

Causal attribution. The judgment documents that the respondents made this objection. Whether the judgments were AI-generated or non-existent is the respondents' claim and is not found by the Court.

  • images.assettype.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'On behalf of the appellants, a compilation of judgments was placed on record to which the respondents raised immediate serious objection.'; 'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-'
  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments," the Court recorded.'
Documented When questioned by the Court, the appellants' advocate-on-record sought to shift the entire blame onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained; the appellants' senior counsel then took the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on their behalf.

Causal attribution. Recorded by the Court in its judgment.

  • images.assettype.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'appellants, facing the Court’s query, sought to shift'; 'the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained.'; 'sought to take the blame on himself and prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the appellants.'
  • courtbook.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness on their behalf.'
Documented The Court proposed exemplary costs against the appellants over the incident and later deleted the direction to pay costs after being informed of the first appellant's death; it made no order as to costs.

Causal attribution. Recorded by the Court in its judgment.

  • images.assettype.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Exemplary costs were proposed to be imposed while coming down heavily on the appellants.'; 'It is for such reason that the order requiring payment of costs has been deleted by “no order as to costs”.'
  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'However, it Court ultimately refrained from imposing costs after being informed of the death of the first appellant'
Reported The judgment does not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments were AI-generated.

Causal attribution. Bar and Bench's reading of the judgment; consistent with paragraph 74, which records the objection as the respondents' claim.

  • barandbench.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The judgment did not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments had been generated using AI.'
Documented The Court dismissed both appeals on their merits and upheld the insolvency proceedings against the two hotel-operating companies.

Causal attribution. The merits outcome is unrelated to the compilation; recorded as context.

  • courtbook.in(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the NCLT orders as affirmed by the NCLAT, and directed that the insolvency resolution processes concerning both companies proceed in accordance with law.'
  • images.assettype.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'this Court finds no merit in either of these appeals and are, therefore dismissed.'

Sources

3 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in full (50 pages, text extracted from the PDF); the AI incident is in paragraph 74. Applies to s1.

Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group. Applies to s2, s3.

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

The hearing and the judgment took place in the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi, as the judgment states. The lawyers' and appellants' own countries are not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-16: Published as a court's consequential response to alleged AI use in a filing: the Supreme Court of India recorded the opposing side's objection that a compilation was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments, criticised the filing advocate-on-record for blaming the clients, and proposed exemplary costs that it later deleted. The facts rest on the judgment itself; the AI generation remains the respondents' claim.

People described

The advocate-on-record for the appellants, whose conduct the Supreme Court criticised in its judgment, and the appellants, against whom exemplary costs were proposed and later deleted

People reported harmed in this case

At least 1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

The judgment criticises one advocate-on-record by role, so 1 is a documented minimum. The appellants faced proposed exemplary costs that were deleted; they are not counted because no consequence to them was carried out, and the number of people behind the appellants is not stated. Whoever used AI, if anyone, is not established, so no one is counted as a direct AI user.

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

Tags

#alleged-ai-generated-judgments#court-rebuke#lawyer-conduct#supreme-court-of-india#ai-involvement-suspected

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-india-supreme-court-rebukes-lawyer-who-blamed-clients-for-filing-alleged-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments

BibTeX

@misc{2026_india_supreme_court_rebukes_lawyer_who_blamed_clients_for_filing_alleged_ai_generated_non_existent_judgments,
  title = {India Supreme Court rebukes lawyer who blamed the clients for a filing that the other side said was full of AI-generated non-existent judgments},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-india-supreme-court-rebukes-lawyer-who-blamed-clients-for-filing-alleged-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments}
}

Related cases

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.

High Unidentified AI tool

SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence

On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.

Medium Unidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated

Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.

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