{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-16T07:36:40.047Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"court-rebuke","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-india-supreme-court-rebukes-lawyer-who-blamed-clients-for-filing-alleged-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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-'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments,\" the Court recorded.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness on their behalf.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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”.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'However, it Court ultimately refrained from imposing costs after being informed of the death of the first appellant'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The judgment did not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments had been generated using AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'this Court finds no merit in either of these appeals and are, therefore dismissed.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"advocate-on-record criticised in a Supreme Court judgment for shifting blame onto the clients over the disputed compilation","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"exemplary costs proposed against the appellants, later deleted","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full (50 pages, text extracted from the PDF); the AI incident is in paragraph 74.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-laments-lawyer-blaming-client-for-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://courtbook.in/posts/supreme-court-criticises-lawyer-for-blaming-client-over-ai-generated-fake-judgments","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A report of the judgment, so it shares the judgment's independence group.","independence_group":"india-supreme-court-judgment-15-oct-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-16"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-15","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-10-15/xlwz6h1p/Deepak_Raheja_Vs_Omkara.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal No. 12195 of 2025 (2026 INSC 1134), 15 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-16T03:01:30.734181+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["alleged-ai-generated-judgments","court-rebuke","lawyer-conduct","supreme-court-of-india","ai-involvement-suspected"]}]}