The Supreme Court encountered its first AI misuse case where a litigant submitted a response with hundreds of fabricated legal precedents. Senior advocates highlighted the grave concern of AI-generated false case laws impacting judicial decisions. While acknowledging the error, the court proceeded to hear the case on its merits, emphasizing the need for caution.
NEW DELHI: In the first instance of misuse of artificial intelligence in the judicial process – detected in Supreme Court – a litigant took the help of AI tools to draft a response that contained hundreds of fake cases. Taking cognisance of the matter, SC said it could not brush it aside but would hear the case on merit.Appearing before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul said a rejoinder filed in the court cited many cases which are all fake and not part of any judicial record. He alleged that some of these cases were correctly mentioned but the questions of law, which were decided in these cases, were misreported. Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for Gstaad Hotels Bengaluru promoter Deepak Raheja, admitted it was a mistake, saying, “I have never been more embarrassed.”Not about AI, but fabrication of case laws: Senior advocateSundaram read out an affidavit filed by the filing advocate in the case.Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Omkara Asset Reconstruction, said the rejoinder submitted by Gstaad Hotels Bengaluru promoter Deepak Raheja was prepared using AI tools and fabricated cases were cited to convince the court in his favour. Kaul submitted that the erring party was not entitled to be heard after the grave mistake. “Fake case laws were invented using AI tools and questions of laws, which were decided by the court, were fabricated by using AI. It is not about AI, but fabrication of case laws and concoction of points of law,” he said. It would be difficult for a bench to detect falsehood as it is supposed to hear 70-80 cases, and if the court relies on the AI-generated falsehood, then it would be disastrous for the judicial system, he added.Sundaram said that he was in complete agreement with Kaul on this issue and told the bench that it was a terrible error committed in court.Reading out the affidavit – filed by the advocate-on-record (AoR), who is responsible for filing any document in SC – Sundaram said the lawyer tendered unconditional apology and assured SC that he would be cautious in future not to repeat the mistake. He sought permission to withdraw the response. “We cannot simply brush it aside,” the court said, and asked why the AoR should take the blame as the response said very clearly that the affidavit was drafted under the guidance of the litigant. SC, thereafter, went ahead hearing the case on merit.The controversy revolves around a high-profile case between Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited and Gstaad Hotels Private Limited. The case went to SC following the hearing in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
