NEW DELHI: Taking notice of a lower court relying on allegedly non-existent judgments generated with the help of artificial intelligence, the Supreme Court has said that a decision based on such fake judgments would not be an error in decision making but would amount to misconduct.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said it would consider the matter in detail and issued notice to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India.
The court also appointed lawyer Shyam Divan to assist it in this case.
“We take note of the publication of purportedly non-existent, false or artificial intelligence-generated rulings by the lower court and seek to examine their consequences and accountability as they have a direct impact on the integrity of the judicial process,” the bench said.
“At the outset, we must state that the decision based on such allegedly non-existent and false provisions is not an error in decision making. It would be misconduct and legal consequences will follow. It is imperative that we examine this issue in more detail,” the bench said in its February 27 order.
The case came up before the Supreme Court while it was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in January, which came in a suit filed seeking an injunction.
The Supreme Court said the case raises significant institutional concern, not because of the decision made on the merits of the case, but in relation to the adjudication and dismissal process.
“They have issued notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Bar Council of India,” she said.
The court noted that pending disposition of the case, the trial court appointed an authorized attorney to observe the physical features of the disputed property.
The bench noted that the petitioners challenged the report of the authorized counsel by raising some objections.
She noted that the court of first instance, in its order issued in August last year, rejected the objections and relied in this process on certain provisions.
The petitioners then appealed the court’s order, arguing that the provisions referred to and relied upon do not exist and are forged.
The Supreme Court noted that the Supreme Court considered the objection and realized that the rulings were made by artificial intelligence.
She said that after recording a word of caution, the Supreme Court proceeded to decide the case on the merits and dismissed the civil review petition, affirming the decision of the lower court.
The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order.
The court agreed to hear the petition and issued a memorandum regarding it.
“Pending disposal of the special leave petition, we direct that the trial court shall not proceed on the basis of the learned counsel’s report,” it said, sending the matter for hearing on March 10.
In a separate hearing on February 17, the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant expressed grave concern over the growing trend of lawyers filing petitions drafted using AI tools which contain non-existent provisions such as “mercy against humanity”.
She made these remarks while hearing a matter on issues of public interest seeking guidelines on political speeches.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
