{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-25T07:51:20.797Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"non-existent-judgments","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"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":"2025-andhra-pradesh-trial-court-relied-on-ai-generated-non-existent-judgments-against-defendants-supreme-court-calls-it-misconduct","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The trial court passed an order in August 2025, dismissing the defendants' challenge to the Advocate Commissioner's report.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'The trial court had in August last year dismissed the objections, relying on Subramani v. M Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'by its order dated 19.08.2025 dismissed the objection'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The top court noted that the high court had considered the objection and realised that the judgments were AI-generated.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'relied on are non-existent and fake orders.'; 'The High Court considered the objection and realized that the judgments are Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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,'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated'; 'the Trial Court shall not proceed on the basis of the Advocate'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"objections in a property suit dismissed by an order relying on AI-generated non-existent judgments, upheld by the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/judges-citing-fake-ai-generated-case-laws-amounts-to-misconduct-supreme-court","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-25 (AMP page, full article). Reports and quotes the Supreme Court's 27 February 2026 order.","independence_group":"supreme-court-order-27-feb-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.dtnext.in/news/national/sc-takes-cognisance-of-trial-court-relying-on-ai-generated-fake-verdicts","kind":"wire_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-25 (PTI copy). Reports the same order; same independence group as Bar & Bench.","independence_group":"supreme-court-order-27-feb-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/supreme-court-asks-bci-to-form-expert-panel-to-examine-use-of-ai-generated-fake-judgments-by-lawyers/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-25. Reports the 5 May 2026 hearing and restates the 27 February order.","independence_group":"tribune-2026-05-10"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/03/02/657120262026-02-27-659314.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"supreme-court-order-27-feb-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["IN"],"event_countries":["IN"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-25"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"India: Supreme Court says an Andhra Pradesh trial court dismissed defendants' objections citing AI-generated non-existent judgments, calling it misconduct","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-03-02","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"IN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/judges-citing-fake-ai-generated-case-laws-amounts-to-misconduct-supreme-court","primarySourceLabel":"Bar & Bench, Judges citing fake AI-generated case laws amounts to misconduct: Supreme Court, 2 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-25T03:23:56.254982+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-25T03:23:56.254982+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-generated-citations","trial-court-order","supreme-court-of-india","non-existent-judgments"]}]}