Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a useful tool for lawyers and law students as it can help in finding information, understanding difficult concepts and doing legal research faster. But there is one problem that every law student and lawyer needs to remember i.e. AI can sometimes give you a case law that does not actually exist.
The Supreme Court dealt with exactly this issue in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., which was decided on 2 July 2026. The judgement is important because it explains what happens when fake or AI generated case laws enter the judicial process.
What Happened in the Case?
The matter arose from insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT had relied on several judicial decisions while passing its order. The matter then went before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which also referred to those authorities.
Later, questions were raised about the case laws relied upon by the tribunals. When the Supreme Court checked the citations, it found that the problem was much more serious than an ordinary citation mistake.
Some of the cases did not exist at all, while in other cases the judgments existed but the paragraphs attributed to them could not be found in the actual judgments. The Supreme Court found that the material was AI-generated and hallucinated.
What Is an AI Hallucination?
In simple terms, an AI hallucination occurs when an AI system produces information that sounds convincing but is actually false or unsupported. In legal research, this can be particularly dangerous.
Example 1 -
An advocate asks an AI tool on any particular point of Supreme Court judgments and the tool provides
Example 1 -
A lawyer asks an AI tool for Supreme Court judgments on a particular point. The tool provides a case with a realistic name, citation and paragraph number. The lawyer assumes it is genuine and cites it in court. And later found that the case does not exist.
Example 2 -
Sometimes the case itself is genuine but the AI provides a paragraph that was not a part of the original judgement.
Example 3 -
A genuine judgment is cited, but the legal principle attributed to it is completely different from what the Court actually held.
An AI tool may provide:
• A case that was never decided
• An incorrect case citation
• A real case with a completely different proposition
• A paragraph that does not exist in the judgment
• Incorrect details about a court’s decision
The problem is that such information can sometimes look completely genuine.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The Supreme Court took a very clear position. It said that courts must adopt zero tolerance towards producing, citing or relying upon AI-generated precedents without verification. The Court also made it clear that the responsibility is shared by both sides of the courtroom.
For an advocate, citing a fake or hallucinated judgment without verifying it amounts to misconduct and for a judge, relying on such material is a serious lapse.
The Court further held that if fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, the resulting decision cannot be sustained. It described such a decision as “no decision in the eyes of law”, irrespective of whether the fake material directly or indirectly affected the final conclusion.
The Court also directed the Bar Council Of India to constitute a committee to deliberate on advocates submitting fake or hallucinated material as precedent and to prescribe appropriate guidance principles and disciplinary consequences for violations.
Does This Mean the Supreme Court Has Banned AI?
The judgment does not say that lawyers or courts cannot use AI. The Supreme Court recognised that AI can be used as an aid in legal and judicial work. What it objected to was treating AI-generated material as a genuine legal authority without checking it.
In other words, using AI is one thing and trusting an unverified AI-generated case law is another. The Court emphasised that there must always be human control over the use of AI in adjudication.
Why Is Verification So Important?
A wrong fact in an ordinary conversation may be corrected later. A fake judgment in a court proceeding is much more serious because judges rely on precedents to decide questions of law, advocates rely on judgments to support their arguments. If a judgment that never existed is presented as legal authority, it can affect the entire process of deciding a case.
That is why legal research cannot stop at getting an answer from an AI tool. The actual judgment has to be checked.
Why This Judgment Matters for Law Students
This judgment is particularly relevant for law students and judiciary aspirants because AI tools are increasingly becoming part of everyday study. Students may use AI to find case laws, prepare notes or understand a legal topic. There is nothing inherently wrong with using technology for these purposes.
But students should develop one important habit i.e to verify before you memorise and rely upon them. If an AI tool gives you a case law, check the actual judgment before putting it into your notes.
This is especially important for judiciary preparation. An incorrect case name or principle can easily find its way into a mains answer if it is not checked beforehand.
How Maansarovar Law Centre Helps Students Approach Such Questions -
At Maansarovar Law Centre, Delhi, we focus not only on helping students learn legal provisions and case laws, but also on understanding how a legal issue should be approached in an examination.
Questions involving AI, judicial ethics, professional responsibility and recent Supreme Court judgments require more than memorising the facts of the case. Students need to understand:
• What happened?
• What was the legal issue?
• What did the Court hold?
• Why did the Court take that approach?
• What are the practical implications?
• Are there any concerns or competing considerations?
For example, a mains question could ask:
“Discuss the Supreme Court’s approach towards AI-generated hallucinated precedents and examine the responsibility of the Bar and Bench in maintaining the integrity of adjudication.”
A good answer should not merely reproduce the judgment. It should first explain AI hallucinations, then discuss the facts of Pooja Ramesh Singh, state the Supreme Court’s ruling, explain the responsibility of advocates and judges, and finally discuss the practical concern of verification and judicial workload.
This is the kind of legal reasoning and structured answer-writing approach that judiciary aspirants need to develop.
Prepare for Judiciary with Maansarovar Law Centre, Delhi -
At Maansarovar Law Centre, Delhi, our Judiciary courses focus on Bare Act preparation, legal concepts, important judgments, current affairs, answer writing, mock tests and the practical approach required for different types of judiciary questions.
For course details and guidance, feel free to contact us: