SC orders strict action against lawyers citing unverified AI-generated judgments

The Supreme Court on Thursday adopted a zero-tolerance approach towards the use of unverified AI-generated judicial precedents in court proceedings, holding that lawyers who cite such material without verification could face disciplinary action.The observation came while the apex court set aside an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in the Essel Infraprojects insolvency matter after finding that the tribunal had relied on AI-generated material presented as judicial precedents, according to a report by Bar & Bench.A Bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said advocates have a professional duty to verify the authenticity of legal authorities before placing them before courts and tribunals. Citing or producing AI-generated precedents without verification would amount to professional misconduct, the court held.The Supreme Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute a committee to examine the issue and frame comprehensive guidelines governing the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. The committee has also been asked to recommend disciplinary measures against lawyers who submit fabricated or fake legal materials as precedents.During its independent verification in the Essel Infraprojects case, the apex court found that several judicial citations relied upon by the tribunal were either entirely fictitious or contained fabricated extracts."We have no hesitation in declaring that such a decision is no decision in the eyes of the law, irrespective of whether such material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decision-making. Such decisions are to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process, as it would violate the sanctity of adjudication," the court said as per Bar & Bench report.Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the NCLT's order and restored the Section 7 insolvency application for fresh consideration. It directed the tribunal to hear and decide the matter afresh, preferably within two weeks.