Supreme Court of India· 02 September 2026
Can an order stand where the adjudicating authority relied on fake or hallucinated AI-generated citations?
Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India and another
2026 INSC 947 · SLP (CIVIL) NO. 15605 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Sheel Nagu
Answer
No. Courts must adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using artificial intelligence-generated precedents without verification. Such a decision is no decision in the eyes of the law, irrespective of whether the material had a direct or indirect bearing on the decision-making, and is to be set aside even if an iota of fake or hallucinated material enters the decision-making process.
Headnote
Customs Act, 1962 — s.114 — Order-in-Original — Reliance on fake or hallucinated artificial intelligence-generated precedents — Zero tolerance —
Customs Act, 1962 — s.114 — Adjudication — Fake or hallucinated AI-generated material —
Held: A decision resting on fake or hallucinated artificial intelligence-generated material is no decision in the eyes of the law, and is to be set aside even if an iota of such material enters the decision-making process. (¶5)
Use of artificial intelligence in adjudication — Assistive tool — Limits —
Held further: Use of AI as an assistive tool cannot be denied, but assistance can never be substituted for adjudication. Order-in-Original set aside; proceedings revived. (¶6, ¶8)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 4We have made the effort to individually verify whether such contention of the appellant is true. Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI.
Paragraph 5Such a discovery compels us to refer to the decision of this Court in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.[^4]. It happens to be a precedent dealing with the use of AI in judgments. Excerpts therefrom read: 7. It is necessary for courts to adopt a zero-tolerance mode for producing, citing or using artificial intelligence-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 artificial intelligence-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 page 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. It is also clarified that our judgment shall have no bearing on the rightful use of artificial intelligence, but on the presentation or reliance on fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent.
Acts & Sections
Customs Act, 1962 s.114One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India and another — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →