Case Note & Summary
Background: The Civil Revision Petition arose under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners were defendants 1 and 2, and the respondents were the plaintiffs. The dispute pertained to an advocate commissioner's report filed in I.A.No.178 of 2023, which the defendants sought to strike down. Facts: The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.773 of 2019 for permanent injunction and other reliefs. They filed I.A.No.178 of 2024 seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner, which the trial court dismissed. The defendants filed C.R.P.No.1658 of 2023; by order dated 12.12.2024, the High Court set aside the dismissal and directed appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify the property purchased by the first defendant under Document No.6404 of 1989 and to report whether the plaint schedule property fell within the same, with assistance of Town/Mandal Surveyor. The advocate commissioner conducted the inspection and submitted a report dated 07.07.2025. The defendants then filed I.A.No.457 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC to strike down the report, alleging collusion with plaintiffs and failure to take surveyor's assistance. The trial court framed three points and dismissed the application by order dated 19.08.2025, holding that the report is an aid to the court and allegations of collusion should be examined at trial. It referred to four Supreme Court judgments: Subramani v. M.Natarajan, (2013) 14 SCC 95; Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy, 1071 (2) SCC 68; Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha, (2006) 5 SCC 551; and Gajanan v. Ramdas, (2015) 6 SCC 223. The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition No.2487 of 2025 challenging the said order on the ground that the citations relied upon by the trial court were non-existent and generated by Artificial Intelligence. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 deserved to be set aside because it referred to non-existent citations/rulings generated by an AI tool. The High Court also considered the broader issue of use of AI in judicial decision-making and the duty to verify authorities. Arguments: The petitioners' counsel submitted that the trial court's order could not be sustained because the citations were not traceable by citation or party names and were non-existent; therefore, the order based on such rulings was liable to be set aside. Court's Analysis: The High Court initially called for a report from the trial court by order dated 26.09.2025. The Judicial Officer reported that she used an AI tool for the first time, which displayed the references, and believing them genuine and relevant, she incorporated them in the order. After verification, she was unable to trace the judgments in law journals or official databases and realized they were AI-generated and not real rulings. She expressed no intention to misquote and promised greater caution in future. The High Court accepted the report. The court observed that AI in its present stage may function only as a tool for organizing information and summarizing records; it does not possess consciousness, moral reasoning, or capacity to weigh evidence. The court referred to English cases Venkateshwarlu Bandla v. Solicitors Regulation Authority and Frederick Ayinde and Ors. v. The London Borough of Haringey and Ors., where courts emphasized the need to protect integrity against fake authority and the professional responsibility of lawyers to ensure accuracy of material. The High Court's analysis indicated that reliance on non-existent AI-generated citations is a serious error undermining judicial process. Decision: The provided excerpt does not include the final operative order; however, the High Court accepted the report and was considering setting aside the impugned order on the ground of non-existent citations. The final direction is not available in the text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Advocate Commissioner Report - Section 151 CPC - Trial court dismissed application to strike down advocate commissioner report holding report is aid to court and allegations of collusion to be examined at trial; High Court revision challenged order on ground of non-existent AI citations (Paras 7-9, 10-11). B) Use of Artificial Intelligence - Judicial Decision-Making - AI is tool only, not conscious, cannot weigh evidence; courts must not rely on AI for legal citations without verification - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The High Court observed that AI may function only as a tool for organizing information and summarizing records, lacking capacity to weigh evidence or appreciate human conduct. The court accepted report that trial court used AI-generated fake citations in good faith. Held that judicial officers must verify citations from authoritative sources before relying on them (Paras 13-16). C) Precedent - Citing Fake Authority - Reliance on non-existent rulings invalidates judicial order; duty to protect integrity of court processes against fake authority - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - The High Court referred to English cases where courts took decisive action to protect integrity against citation of fake authority. The trial court's order was challenged for relying on citations that were not traceable in law journals or official databases. Held that citing non-existent authority is serious and undermines judicial process (Paras 17-18). D) Professional Responsibility - Duty to Verify - Judicial officers and lawyers must ensure accuracy of case citations; mistake due to reliance on automatic source does not excuse - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The Judicial Officer admitted first-time use of AI tool and failure to trace judgments, expressing no intention to misquote. The High Court accepted the report and emphasized future caution. Held that reliance on unverified AI-generated citations cannot be condoned (Paras 13-14, 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 deserves to be set aside as it refers to the non-existent citations/rulings generated by Artificial Intelligence Tool?
Law Points
- Artificial Intelligence cannot replace judicial reasoning
- Courts and lawyers have duty to verify authorities
- Reliance on non-existent AI-generated citations vitiates judicial order
- Advocate commissioner report is aid to court and allegations of collusion to be examined at trial
- Judicial officers must verify citations from authoritative sources
