New Delhi: Taking cognisance of a trial court relying on alleged non-existing verdicts that were generated with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), the Supreme Court has said a decision based on such fake judgments would not be an error in decision-making but would amount to misconduct.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has said it will examine the matter in detail and issued a notice to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India.
The court has also appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist it in the matter.
We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process, the bench said.
At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision-making. It would be misconduct, and legal consequences shall follow. It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail, the bench said in its February 27 order.
The issue cropped up before the apex court while it was hearing a plea challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that came on a suit filed for an injunction.
The top court said the case assumes considerable institutional concern, not because of the decision that was taken on the merits of the case, but regarding the process of adjudication and determination.
Issue notice to the attorney general, solicitor general and the Bar Council of India, it said.
The court noted that pending the suit’s disposal, the trial court had appointed an advocate-commissioner to note the physical features of the disputed property.
The bench pointed out that the petitioners had challenged the advocate-commissioner’s report by raising certain objections.
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.
The petitioners then challenged the trial court’s order, contending that the verdicts referred to and relied on were non-existent and fake.
The top court noted that the high court had considered the objection and realised that the judgments were AI-generated.
It said after recording a word of caution, the high court had proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the civil revision petition, affirming the decision of the trial court.
The petitioners then moved the apex court, challenging the high court’s order.
The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued a notice on it.
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, it said and posted the matter for hearing March 10.
Hearing a separate matter February 17, a top court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed serious concern over a growing trend of lawyers filing petitions drafted with AI tools that contain non-existent judgments, such as Mercy vs Mankind.
It made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) matter seeking guidelines on political speeches.
