Supreme Court Calls Process Of Judicial Decision-Making A Saadhana; Urges Absolute Control Over Use Of Artificial Intelligence

The Supreme Court of India has called upon the legal fraternity to be extra cautious while using Artificial Intelligence, as it has said that unregulated use of AI will insidiously enter legal practice, the process of judicial decision-making and decision-making itself.

Comparing the process of judicial decision making to Saadhana, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has said, "This intellectual exercise, coupled with experience and foresight, enables us to choose between competing values, as well as to take hard decisions with courage and conviction, and to bring about a beautiful balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. A struggle to arrive at truth, it is a Saadhana. In fact, the secret is in the Saadhana itself, for without this deliberate, conscious, and continuous practice of scientific temper, we lose the capability to discriminate between what is right and what is wrong. Lose this, and we would have lost everything."

Court has warned that if thinking is delegated and it forms a habit, it will have serious consequences for the core of human existence, which lies in its capacity to think – to discern the distinction between what is right and what is wrong, truth and falsehood, virtue and vice, dharma and adharma.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has made these observations while setting the NCLT's judgement wherein it has relied on non-existent, fake and hallucinated material, generated through Artificial Intelligence (AI), as if it were a precedent in support of its judgment. "More than the inevitable consequence of setting aside such judgments, what is significant for our decision-making is our resolve to adopt AI technology in aid of adjudication, while at the same time asserting and declaring total and absolute control over adjudication, with a human in the loop at every stage," the bench has said.

As per the Supreme Court, it is compelling and necessary to have absolute and total control over the application and usage of AI. 

"We are aware that this is not an issue that can be resolved through judicial orders and declaratory judgments, but only through Public Policy and enforceable Rules and Regulations. We are also aware that the process has commenced, the Regulations are being deliberated, and they will be notified after due process and in due course. The real success is, however, not in the making of the Rule or Regulation, but to be found in the power of the will of the Bar as well as the Bench, to harness this science and apply it with care and caution. No other facet of law and its practice has ever demanded a higher and deeper corroboration and coordination between the Bar and the Bench than the need to identify, decide, and apply AI to adjudication and the determination of disputes," the bench has observed.

Court has compared the production of fake, non-existent, and hallucinated material and its utilisation as precedents in law, with the release of methyl isocyanate in the province of law and justice: invisible, insidious, and catastrophic by the time anyone notices.

Justice Narasimha has said it is necessary for Courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification. "It is a misconduct on the part of an advocate to cite such judgments without verification. Equally, it is a serious lapse if a judge relies on such a fake or hallucinated AI-generated material as precedents in support of the determination. 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. It is absolutely necessary to maintain integrity in decision-making, and we reiterate and declare zero tolerance for the Bar as well as the Bench to cite, refer to, or rely on such material," the top court has remarked.

Accordingly, the bench has urged Bar Council of India to constitute a committee and deliberate on this issue of members of the bar submitting such fake and hallucinated material before the Court as if they are precedents of law.

Case Title: POOJA RAMESH SINGH vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. & ANR.

Bench: Justices Narasimha and Aradhe

Judgment Date: July 2, 2026