Supreme Court fumes over lawyers’ AI use, judges angered by fake cases like ‘Daya vs Humanity’
New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over the careless and unchecked use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by lawyers while drafting petitions and legal submissions. The court noted that in several recent cases, advocates relied on AI tools without verification and cited judgments and legal references that do not exist at all. The apex court termed this practice misleading and harmful to the justice delivery system.
Bench expresses strong displeasure during hearing
The sharp remarks came during the hearing of the Himanta Biswa-related matter before a bench led by Justice Suryakant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice B. V. Nagarathna. The Chief Justice pointed out that some lawyers are blindly using AI tools without cross-checking facts, resulting in incorrect and fabricated information being placed before the court, which poses a serious risk to judicial proceedings.
Fake case ‘Daya vs Humanity’ shocks the court
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna highlighted a startling example where a non-existent judgment titled “Daya vs Humanity” was cited in court. She clarified that no such case exists in legal records. In some instances, even when real judgments are mentioned, the paragraphs quoted are not part of the original verdicts. The Chief Justice further noted that a similar incident had earlier occurred in the court of Justice Dipankar Datta, where cited precedents were later found to be completely fabricated.
Administrative directions to be issued soon
The Supreme Court’s warning comes at a time when an international AI summit is being held in the country. The court made it clear that it will soon issue detailed administrative guidelines to all High Courts and the Supreme Court Registry to prevent misuse of AI in legal work. Lawyers have been strictly reminded that while AI may assist in legal research, the responsibility for the accuracy and authenticity of documents submitted to the court rests entirely with the advocate.