Indian courts are now confronting a problem that has already unsettled judicial systems in the US and parts of Europe: lawyers submitting AI-generated case citations that do not exist.
While American courts have seen a series of disciplinary actions since 2023, most notably the sanctioning of attorneys for filing fabricated precedents sourced from chatbots, the Indian legal system has recently been confronting this challenge.
What began as a distant concern is now surfacing inside pleadings, orders and oral submissions, placing India squarely in a global conversation about the reliability of generative AI in legal practice.
According to Anandaday Misshra, founder and managing partner at AMLEGALS, a specialised law firm functioning across cities, Indian courts are “definitively encountering” AI-generated citations, with the risk moving from abstract speculation to documented judicial observation in 2024-25.
Although the problem is not yet as widespread as in the US, the trend line is clear. More lawyers are experimenting with AI for research, and more judges are flagging fictitious precedents.
The Instances
The Delhi High Court’s experience earlier this year was a glaring example. In the Greenopolis Welfare Association case (2025), a lawyer submitted what looked like a robust list of precedents.
The opposing side, according to reports, soon discovered that the paragraphs and even the judgments themselves were fabricated.
The court admonished the lawyer, and the petition was withdrawn immediately to avoid contempt. Misshra identifies this as one of the first high-profile instances of hallucinated research entering the Indian court record.
Soon after, an even more unusual situation emerged in Bengaluru. In the Buckeye Trust matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the bench recalled its own order after realising that it had relied on case laws cited by a representative that were later found to be AI-generated fabrications.
Real-time misuse is also occurring. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reprimanded lawyers for using AI tools and Google searches during live hearings. The court warned that “AI cannot replace actual intelligence”, reflecting judicial anxiety about declining rigour as lawyers attempt to rely on instant digital responses.
Misshra pointed out that despite these developments, Indian judges and registrars are not formally trained to detect AI-generated irregularities.
There is no standard detection or verification framework across courts. Awareness, however, is accelerating.
The Way Forward
The Kerala High Court has drafted a policy banning the use of AI in judicial reasoning, while Supreme Court judges have issued multiple warnings about the dangers of AI hallucinations.
Recently, chief justice BR Gavai cautioned judicial trainees in Nairobi about fabricated citations circulating through generative tools, an indication of the seriousness with which the upper judiciary now views the issue.
Misshra argued that India does not need new laws to address the problem. Existing frameworks already impose severe consequences.
Lawyers, as officers of the court, can be held liable for professional misconduct for knowingly submitting fabricated citations, risking suspension of their licences. Such conduct may also amount to contempt of court and a criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for dishonestly presenting false claims.
For him, enforcement, not legislation, is the real gap.
Misshra’s practical guidance for lawyers remains simple. If a citation appears unfamiliar or suspicious, demand a photocopy from authoritative reporters or insist on a verified neutral-citation version from an official judicial repository.
However, senior legal advisor Priyanka S Kulkarni believes the profession must move beyond the photocopy era. She agreed with the underlying concern, protecting the integrity of judicial records, but noted that insisting on physical copies feels retrograde in 2025, when most courts are paperless or hybrid.
The real solution lies in a court-endorsed digital authentication protocol, she said. QR-coded judgments, cryptographic hash stamps or official authenticity layers embedded in each judgment, she argued, would ensure that only verified citations circulate within the judicial ecosystem.
The greater danger, she said, is when a fabricated citation slips into a judicial order, because once inside, it can repeat itself across future cases.
Kulkarni observed that fake citations are rarely malicious. More often, they originate from workflow shortcuts, juniors relying on AI tools to avoid drudgery or seniors using AI outputs without cross-checking due to unfamiliarity with the technology.
The core issue, she argued, is the profession’s struggle to balance technological adoption with fundamental diligence. “AI is a powerful aid, but it cannot replace the mandatory step of verifying every citation against an authoritative source,” she said.
Another cause of concern is the lower courts, where digital infrastructure may be inconsistent.
That vulnerability does not reflect judicial standards, Kulkarni emphasised, but highlights the responsibility of lawyers to verify authorities rigorously, so that no fabricated precedent becomes accepted simply because it went unchallenged.
Client Protection
For clients affected by such lapses, Kulkarni said legal remedies already exist.
A client can approach the Bar Council for professional misconduct, file a civil negligence or malpractice claim, or move a consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, since legal services have often been held to fall within its ambit.
If the fabricated citation influenced the outcome of the case, the client can also seek an appeal or review.
Kulkarni stressed that liability does not depend on whether the error arose from AI or from manual research; professional accountability remains unchanged.
The post India’s New Courtroom Menace: Judgments That Never Existed appeared first on Analytics India Magazine.
