Introduction

Stare Decisis is a foundational doctrine of common law requiring the courts of law to follow the rulings and judgements passed by a higher court in the past over matters of similar factum and cause thereby ensuring consistency and practicality of law.

However, the use of generative AI as precedent rulings in the pleadings is a serious strike at the doctrine apparently aiming to gain unwarranted and wrongful accomplishment of the desired outcomes by presenting fictitious rulings and misquoted judgements and manipulated evidence. Also Known as “Phantom Precedents” and “Hallucinations”, Generative AI has already earned a sombre reputation in the Modern Jurisprudence and the Justice Administration System, where it is seen as a massive impediment in the path of the Procedures of Law and Doctrine of Precedents.

The Critical question arises here whether this deliberate misuse of unverified generative AI in critical affairs such as Legal Procedures be considered an offence against the court of law itself and what is the perspective of the judiciary towards this rising issue?

Historical Background

Internationally, the United States reported the first ever case of the exploitation of Generative AI IN 2023, producing non-existent authorities and rulings created using ChatGPT in Legal Briefs and Pleadings in the Mata vs. Avianca , describing the pleadings as “gibberish” and the lawyers having acted in “bad faith” and promoting “cynicism about the legal profession”, leading to a penalty of $5,000/- levied upon the plaintiff’s Attorney. A similar set of events was witnessed in Jonathan David Sheppard vs. Jillion LLC , where the Qatar Financial Centre Civil and Commercial Court finds the use of AI without a thorough double-check “ordinarily amounts to reckless conduct”, “amounted to intentional conduct” and without a “reasonable excuse”. Another landmark judgement refers to these incidents as casting “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused.”

Related Case Studies

Indian Courts have always held the abuse of AI in the court of law in a much stern light, calling out such incidents as sheer misdemeanor, irresponsibility and contempt against a Court by Advocates as the officers of the Court. Many pronouncements assumed a punitive outlook, penalising the offenders with heavy costs while expressing deep resentment and Following are discussed some landmark judgements from the Indian context, clear enough to reflect the standpoint of the Indian Jurisprudence on the issue:

1. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. vs. Deepak, March 2026

Originally a rent evasion and eviction case from Mumbai, the matter attracted limelight when the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay, over careful and rigorous research in order to locate the citations quoted by the Petitioners, discovered the citations to be of the nature of “Repetitive Content” and in “formatting patterns”, a most commonly detectable sign of an AI generated content. The High Court determined such actions by the Petitioners as sheer misuse of agency and a “hurdle in the swift delivery of justice” and imposed a penalty as high as Rs. 50,000/- upon them.

As the matter ascends to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it found such instances to be a “menace” to the legal profession and society at large and upheld the imposition of penalty by the High Court, thus solidifying the stringent stand of the Judiciary against such actions.

2. Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.

In the most recent case, The Supreme Court had to call out a series of non-existent legal authorities and citations quoted by litigants that could not be located anywhere on any legal database.

The court took this matter rather seriously finding as follows:

“ We take cognizance of the Trial Court deploying AI generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process. At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow. It is compelling that we examine this issue in more detail.”

3. Punam Pandey vs. Former SHO, PS: Mehrauli & Ors.

A Delhi Court in a similar matter rebuked the complaint application filed by the Complainant as being with a “more technical intervention and less of human mind
contribution”.

It observed the fact that these pleadings “certainly do not make any sense and fail to convey anything else” and that such drafting has caused the “wastage of judicial time” and efforts.

The Court criticised the drafting as having been “dumped before this Court” and imposed Rs. 20,000/-. of fine over the pleaders.

Critical Analysis

With meticulous and in-depth study of the cases cited above, one comes to the conclusion that taking AI’s assistance while drafting Legal Documents and relying hopelessly on AI generated data has been registered as grave “Professional Misconduct” and “Improper” by courts across continents and various jurisdictions.

In order to combat the increasing episodes of this “Professional Misdemeanor” recorded increasingly in the judicial settings, the Supreme Court of India in the March of 2026 issued for the Attorney General to create and release necessary guidelines to regulate and control the misuse of the Artificial Intelligence, especially the unwarranted and unaccountable havoc created by use of Generative AI.

Solidifying its nonapproval of the misuse of AI in critical proceedings as law and Judiciary, The Supreme Court of India further released a White Paper , titled “Artificial Intelligence and the Judiciary” on November 2025 highlighting the ultimate judicial warning and the potential risks that are associated with the unfettered dependence on Generative AI while conducting Legal Researches and drafting formal documents.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Winding up the discussion, AI as any other scientific advancement tool must be seen as a help to reduce the efforts of the man and to enhance its efficiency,
“Although the use of artificial intelligence is to be welcomed in litigation with its potential to reduce cost and promote greater effectiveness” ,“those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research notwithstanding these risks have a professional duty therefore to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work”.

“If an AI tool is used in aid of research, it is welcome; however, there is great responsibility upon the party, even an advocate using such tools, to cross verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the machine/computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence”. A more diligent approach must be adopted by the Advocates and Legal Professionals while using AI in the course of their professional work in order to render complete justice to the professional
and ethical obligation due upon them.