The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed serious concern over a growing trend of lawyers relying on artificial intelligence tools to draft petitions that contain fabricated case citations and inaccurate quotations.
The issue surfaced during proceedings before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice BV Nagarathna.
“Absolutely Uncalled For”: CJI on AI-Drafted Pleadings
Expressing strong disapproval, the Chief Justice observed that the Court was “alarmed” by the increasing use of AI tools for drafting legal pleadings without proper verification. He remarked that such a practice was “absolutely uncalled for,” particularly when it results in citations of judgments that do not exist.
Justice Nagarathna shared a recent instance where a petition cited a case titled “Mercy v. Mankind”—a judgment that, upon scrutiny, was found to be entirely fictitious. The judge also flagged another troubling pattern: while some petitions refer to genuine judgments, they attribute fabricated quotations to them. According to her, this not only misleads the Court but also imposes an unnecessary burden on judges, who must then independently verify each citation.
The Chief Justice referred to a similar episode that occurred in the courtroom of Justice Dipankar Datta, where multiple non-existent judgments were cited in a single matter. “Not one, but a series of such judgments were cited,” he noted, underscoring the scale of the problem.
Burden on the Bench, Decline in Drafting Standards
Justice Bagchi lamented what he described as a noticeable decline in the quality of legal drafting. He observed that many Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed today are largely compilations of lengthy extracts from previous judgments, rather than structured legal arguments grounded in the facts of the case.
Drawing a contrast with earlier generations of advocates, Justice Bagchi recalled the drafting style of eminent lawyers such as Senior Advocate Ashok Kumar Sen, whose pleadings were known for their clarity, brevity, and originality. He remarked that the traditional art of precise and analytical drafting appears to have suffered in recent times.
Growing Judicial Scrutiny of AI Use
The observations come amid increasing judicial scrutiny of the use of generative AI tools in litigation. Courts have repeatedly cautioned members of the Bar that while technology may assist in research, ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of pleadings lies with the advocate on record.
Recently, the Bombay High Court imposed costs on a litigant after it was discovered that AI-generated fake citations had been included in submissions. The Court emphasised that reliance on unverified AI outputs cannot be a defence for professional lapses.
A Call for Professional Responsibility
The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore a broader concern about professional ethics and accountability in an era of rapidly advancing technology. While AI tools are increasingly used for legal research and drafting assistance, the Court’s message was clear: technology cannot replace the duty of due diligence.
With courts now openly flagging the misuse of AI in pleadings, members of the legal fraternity may face stricter scrutiny—and possible consequences—if found citing fabricated authorities or misquoting judicial precedents.
The development signals a critical moment for the Bar, as the judiciary seeks to balance technological innovation with the integrity of the judicial process.
Read More: ICAI Board Reprimands 11 Ahmedabad CAs in Alleged Bogus Political Donations Scheme
