AI 'hallucination' again in a trial court order, SC talks of 'institutional concern', Pg9

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court flagged the use of non-existent, AI-generated judgments in a trial court order as "misconduct".
• An additional junior civil judge in Vijayawada used an AI tool to research case law and cited four non-existent Supreme Court judgments in an order in August 2025.
• The Andhra Pradesh High Court accepted the judge's explanation of "good faith" but the Supreme Court took a sterner view on February 27, 2026, staying the trial court proceedings.
• The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a special leave petition on February 13, 2026, after the petitioner cited non-existent judgments.

Detailed Insights:

• The Supreme Court expressed "considerable institutional concern" regarding the use of AI-generated judgments, emphasizing the need to examine the consequences and accountability.
• The judge admitted to using an AI tool for the first time and not verifying the citations against authentic legal databases, but claimed no intention to misquote.
• The Supreme Court warned that a decision based on fake judgments is not an error but "misconduct," indicating that legal consequences will follow.
• In November 2025, the Supreme Court released a 'White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and Judiciary' identifying "fabrication of Cases and Hallucination" as a primary risk associated with AI use.
• The White Paper recommended establishing AI ethics committees within courts and mandated independent verification of all information obtained through AI tools.
• In July 2025, the Kerala High Court issued a formal AI policy for its district judiciary, requiring meticulous verification of legal citations and warning of disciplinary action for violations.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI): Simulation of human intelligence processes by computer systems.
• AI Hallucination: An instance when an AI model generates false or misleading information.
• Judicial Precedent: A legal principle established in a prior court case that can be used as the basis for deciding subsequent similar cases.