Fake AI-Generated Citations Cited by Court — Judges Must Use Actual, Not Artificial Intelligence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Courts Must Exercise Actual Intelligence Over Artificial Intelligence….Mere Mention of AI-Generated Non-Existent Rulings Does Not Vitiate Judicial Order if Correct Law Is Applied”, In a significant judgment addressing the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools within the judicial process, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a trial court's reliance on non-existent case law citations—unwittingly generated by an AI tool—does not, by itself, invalidate the judicial order if the correct legal principles have otherwise been rightly applied.

On January 2026, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari holding that the impugned trial court order rejecting the plea to strike down an Advocate Commissioner’s report did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Background: Trial Court Relied on AI-Generated Citations; Challenge Raised on Integrity of Process

The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction wherein the trial court had, pursuant to High Court directions in CRP No. 1658 of 2023, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to verify whether the plaintiff's claimed property fell within the boundaries of land purchased by the first defendant under a registered document.

After the Commissioner submitted his report dated July 7, 2025, the defendants (petitioners) filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC (I.A. No. 457 of 2025), seeking to strike down the report, alleging collusion and misconduct, and asserting that the Commissioner failed to follow the High Court’s specific direction to take assistance from the Town/Mandal Surveyor.

The Trial Court rejected the application, stating that the Commissioner’s report is a piece of evidence, not binding on the court, and its reliability must be tested during trial through cross-examination and further evidence. However, it relied on several judicial precedents that turned out to be fictitious, which prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court invoking Article 227, challenging the order on the ground that it was based on AI-generated non-existent rulings.

High Court Acknowledges Bona Fide Mistake by Judicial Officer Due to Use of AI Tools

In a remarkable demonstration of transparency and judicial candor, the presiding Judicial Officer submitted a report to the High Court admitting that the cited case laws were auto-generated by an AI tool she had used for the first time. She acknowledged that she failed to verify the authenticity of those rulings before incorporating them into the judgment.

The High Court, while accepting the officer's explanation, observed:
"The learned Judicial Officer expressed that there was no intention to misquote or misrepresent those rulings in the judicial pronouncement and the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source… In future, she shall exercise greater caution in verifying citations from the authoritative sources."

Justice Tilhari took this occasion to issue a broader caution to the Bar and Bench on the unchecked reliance on AI in legal research:
"Although AI tools can be beneficial, their unregulated use may give rise to serious concerns, including violations of privacy and damage to the confidence and trust in judicial decision-making."

“Commissioner's Report Is Not Binding, But Aids the Court”: High Court Clarifies Scope Under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC

Reiterating the settled legal position, the High Court clarified that a Commissioner's report under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC is not adjudicatory in nature and is merely an evidentiary aid.

"The Commissioner does not strictly perform a 'judicial act which is binding' but only a 'ministerial act'. The Commissioner's report is only an opinion or noting, and the court has the power to confirm, vary or set aside the report, or issue a new commission." [Para 30]

The Court further relied on the Apex Court’s ruling in M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, [(2022) 14 SCC 345], to affirm that even if the trial court chooses to rely on the Commissioner’s report, it only aids but does not bind the court.

The evidentiary value of the Commissioner's report, as clarified in Kanchi Subbamma v. Mannepalli Penchalaiah, [1977 SCC OnLine AP 115], is limited to what was observed on site and must be evaluated in light of other evidence.

AI-Generated Citations Cannot Undermine Legally Sound Orders

While emphasizing that false or fabricated citations—whether due to AI tools or otherwise—pose serious threats to judicial integrity, the Court drew a crucial distinction between procedural irregularity and substantive legal error.

"Mere mention of the non-existent citations/rulings generated by Artificial Intelligence in the order would not vitiate the order if the law as considered in the order is the correct law of the land and there is no fault in applying the correct law, correctly to the facts of the case." [Para 36]

The Court emphasized that had the order been legally unsound or premised on incorrect legal principles misattributed through AI tools, interference would have been warranted. However, that was not the case here.

Use of AI Must Be Accompanied by Human Oversight: Judicial Warning Issued

In a strong advisory to the legal fraternity, Justice Tilhari underscored the dangers of unverified AI-generated material being used in judicial documents.

Referencing recent international rulings such as Venkateshwarlu Bandla v. Solicitors Regulation Authority and Frederick Ayinde v. London Borough of Haringey, the Court warned that misuse or blind reliance on AI outputs—especially fictitious citations—can mislead courts, waste judicial time, and erode trust in the justice system.

"The people who employ AI for legal research should rigorously scrutinize its outputs, including the authorities cited… AI systems can produce responses that appear persuasive yet are factually or legally incorrect… They may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration." [Paras 20–21]

Petitioners Can Raise Objections at Trial, But No Interference at Interlocutory Stage

The Court concluded that the petitioners’ challenge to the Commissioner’s report—based on alleged misconduct and procedural deviation—must be tested at trial through cross-examination and evidence. Dismissing the plea to strike down the report at the interlocutory stage, the Court found no exceptional circumstance warranting Article 227 intervention.

"The Commissioner’s report is a piece of the evidence. It is to be considered at the final hearing subject to the objections raised and the evidence on record… The order therefore, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners at this stage." [Para 34]

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, affirming that the impugned trial court order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or illegality and permitted the parties to raise all objections to the report during trial.

Date of Decision: January 2026