The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a judicial order is not liable to be set aside merely because it refers to non-existent citations generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool, provided that the legal principles applied in the order are correct and applicable to the facts of the case.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court order that had relied on four non-existent judgments generated by AI. While upholding the order based on its substantive legal merit, the High Court issued a stern caution regarding the use of AI in judicial proceedings, stating, “The exercise of actual intelligence over artificial intelligence should be preferred.”
Brief Summary
The High Court was hearing a revision petition against an order of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, which refused to strike down an Advocate Commissioner’s report. The petitioners argued that the Trial Court’s order was based on non-existent case laws. The High Court confirmed that the citations were indeed fake, generated by an AI tool used by the Trial Judge. However, the High Court ruled that since the core legal reasoning regarding the evidentiary value of a Commissioner’s report was correct under the law of the land, the reference to fake citations did not vitiate the order.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a suit (O.S.No.773 of 2019) filed for a permanent injunction. During the proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to identify the property purchased by the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the defendants (petitioners herein) filed an application (I.A.No.457 of 2025) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to strike down the Advocate Commissioner’s report. They alleged that the Commissioner had colluded with the plaintiffs and failed to follow the High Court’s earlier directions regarding the survey.
By an order dated August 19, 2025, the Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application. In its order, the Trial Court cited four judgments to support its decision:
- Subramani v. M.Natarajan ((2013) 14 SCC 95)
- Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Ramasamy (1971 (2) SCC 68)
- Lakshmi Devi v. K.Prabha ((2006) 5 SCC 551)
- Gajanan v. Ramdas ((2015) 6 SCC 223)
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the defendants approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri M. Venkata Siva Teja, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order of the learned Trial Court could not be sustained. He submitted that the citations relied upon by the Trial Court were non-existent—neither available by citation nor by party names. He argued that an order passed based on non-existent rulings for a proposition of law is liable to be set aside.
Court’s Inquiry and Trial Judge’s Report
Taking note of the submission, the High Court had previously called for a report from the Trial Court regarding the citations. The Judicial Officer submitted a report admitting that she had used an Artificial Intelligence tool for the first time. The Officer reported that she believed the AI-displayed references were genuine and incorporated them in good faith. However, upon subsequent verification after the High Court’s intervention, she realized the citations were “generated by the AI Tool and were not the real rulings.”
The Judicial Officer expressed that there was no intention to misquote and that the mistake occurred solely due to reliance on an automatic source. The High Court accepted the report, noting the officer’s assurance to exercise greater caution in the future.
Court’s Analysis
On the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Justice Tilhari devoted a significant portion of the judgment to the risks of unregulated AI use in the legal field. The Court observed that AI, in its current stage, “does not possess consciousness, moral reasoning, or the capacity to weigh evidence, or appreciate the nuances of human conduct.”
The Court referred to international and domestic precedents highlighting the dangers of “hallucinated” authorities, including:
- Venkateshwarlu Bandla Vs. Solicitors Regulation Authority (England and Wales High Court), where decisive action was called for against citations of fake authority.
- Frederick Ayinde and Ors. vs The London Borough of Haringey (England and Wales High Court), which noted that referencing fictitious authorities is strictly unacceptable.
- Mr. Deepak vs Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd (Bombay High Court), where the Court emphasized the responsibility to cross-verify AI-generated material.
- Annaya Kocha Shetty vs Laxmibai Narayan Satose (Supreme Court of India), which noted that while technology enhances efficiency, it requires caution.
Justice Tilhari observed:
“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.”
The Court further directed:
“The learned Trial Courts while using the Artificial Intelligence tools in judgments shall remain vigilant cautious and act with judicial application of mind to make just decision ensuring that the judgments/orders are based on correct legal principles.”
On the Legality of the Impugned Order
Despite the reliance on fake citations, the High Court proceeded to examine whether the decision itself—refusing to strike down the Commissioner’s report—was legally sound.
The Court analyzed the evidentiary value of a Commissioner’s report under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC. Relying on established Supreme Court judgments, including Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India ((1984) 3 SCC 161) and M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit vs. Modi Transport Service ((2022) 14 SCC 345), the High Court reiterated that:
- A Commissioner’s report is a “ministerial act” and not a “judicial act.”
- The report is a piece of evidence to be weighed against other evidence.
- It is “non-adjudicatory in nature.”
- Objections to the report should be tested during the trial via cross-examination, rather than striking down the report at the threshold on mere allegations of collusion.
The High Court found that the Trial Court’s reasoning—that the report should be considered during the trial and that allegations of collusion require proof—was “perfectly justified” and supported by the law of the land.
Justice Tilhari concluded:
“Mere mentioning 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.”
Decision
The High Court held that the impugned order did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Gummadi Usha Rani and another vs. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao and another
- Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2487 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
