NEW DELHI: In the first case of misuse of artificial intelligence in judicial proceedings, which came to light in the Supreme Court, litigants took the help of AI tools to prepare correspondence containing hundreds of fake lawsuits. The SC has taken cognizance of the issue and said it cannot ignore the issue but will hear the case on merits.Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaur, who appeared in the bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice AG Masih, said the review petitioners filed before the court had cited many cases that were all fake and were not part of the judicial record. He argued that while some of these cases were correctly mentioned, the legal issues decided in these cases were misreported. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing on behalf of Gstaad Hotels Bangalore promoter Deepak Raheja, acknowledged the mistake and said, “I have never been more embarrassed.''”It's not about AI, but Fabrication of case law: Senior AdvocateMr. Sundaram read out an affidavit filed by the litigants in the case.Neeraj Kishan Kaur, senior advocate at Omkara Asset Reconstruction, said the reconsideration petition filed by Deepak Raheja, promoter of Gstaad Hotels Bangalore, was prepared using AI tools and cited fabricated cases to sway the court in his favor.Kaul argued that after a serious mistake, the erring party was not entitled to a hearing. “Fake case law was fabricated using AI tools, and legal issues decided by courts were fabricated using AI. This is not an AI issue, it's fabrication of case law and fabrication of issues,” he said. Since courts are supposed to hear 70 to 80 cases, it is difficult to spot falsehoods, he added, and if courts rely on AI-generated falsehoods, the consequences for the justice system would be dire.Sundaram completely agreed with Kaul on this issue and told the court this was a terrible mistake.Sundaram read out an affidavit filed by the Advocate of Record (AoR), who is responsible for submitting the documents to the SC, and said the lawyer had unconditionally apologized and assured the SC not to repeat the mistake in future. He asked permission to withdraw his answer. The court said it “cannot simply be ignored” and asked why the AoR should be held liable since the affidavit was very clearly stated to have been prepared under the guidance of the litigants. The SC then proceeded with the case on the merits.The dispute revolves around a high-profile case between Omkara Asset Reconstruction Private Limited and Gstaad Hotels Private Limited. The case was heard by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and then transferred to the SC.
