25 May 2025IsraelUnidentified AI tool
In May 2025 the Ramat Gan municipality in Israel refused a request that a special-education pupil be given school transport from his father's home, citing an Education Ministry director-general circular and quotations from recent rulings. The father's lawyer could not find the circular, and the Education Ministry said it did not know it. After the father petitioned the Tel Aviv District Court, the municipality agreed in July 2025 to restore the transport but again filed invented quotations, and the district court refused costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court (Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, ruling published 22 March 2026) held that the documents left no doubt that the municipality had used artificial intelligence and that its decision, at least as presented to the pupil, clearly rested on uncontrolled AI use. It ordered the municipality to pay 30,000 shekels in costs.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Involving minors
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 27/10/2026
19 Aug 2025IndiaUnidentified AI tool
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.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 25/10/2026
28 Sept 2026Event location unknownChatGPT (reported)
A father in a dispute with the canton of Basel-Stadt over an electricity-price bonus for his newborn daughter filed a 243-page appeal with 17 requests to Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court, about 28 times the length of the cantonal judgment he challenged, which ran to just under eight and a half pages. He told the court that drafting it had been possible only through his "above-average intelligence", his analytical skills and the intensive support of ChatGPT Plus. In judgment 2C_549/2026 of 28 September 2026 the presiding judge, sitting alone, found the brief excessively prolix, held that using artificial intelligence did not release him from the pleading requirements and was no free pass for sprawling briefs, refused him a period to shorten it and declined to hear the appeal. No court costs were imposed. blue News reported the judgment on 20 October 2026.
Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 23/10/2026
Event date unknownIndiaUnidentified AI tool (suspected)
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 relation unknown Low reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 16/10/2026
8 Oct 2025 to 2 Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified AI tool
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.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026
24 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified facial recognition system
In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 24/09/2026