Use of AI-Generated Fake Citations

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao (2025) held that mere mention of non-existent citations generated by Artificial Intelligence would not vitiate an order if the law considered in the order is correct and there is no fault in the application of the law to the facts of the case. 

What was the Background of Gummadi Usha Rani v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao (2025) Case? 

• The Trial Court had upheld an advocate for commissioner's report in a case. 
• While passing the order, the judicial officer relied on citations generated by AI without subsequent verification. 
• This resulted in the inclusion of non-existent authorities in the order. 
• The judicial officer had nonetheless accorded reasons while upholding the report. 
• The Trial Court noted that the advocate commissioner's report is a valuable piece of evidence. 
• The report can be scrutinized in light of other pieces of evidence and shall be considered at the trial stage. 
• The report would only be rejected if shown to be vitiated by bias or misconduct. 
• The petitioners challenged the Trial Court's order before the High Court. 
• The challenge was made on the ground that citations relied upon by the Trial Court did not exist. 
• The petitioners contended that the order was liable to be set aside due to reliance on non-existent citations. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that while the citations may be non-existent, if the Trial Court has considered correct principles of law and its application to the facts of the case is also correct, then mere mentioning of incorrect or non-existent rulings or citations in the order cannot be a ground to set aside the order. 
• The Court held that interference would be warranted only if the principle of law applied is not the law of the land or its application in a given case is faulted because of relying on non-existent rulings generated by AI. 
• The Court noted that the judicial officer gave a reasoned order supported by law. 
• The reasons recorded in the order and the view taken by the Trial Court were perfectly justified and had the support of law. 
• The Court emphasized that the commissioner's report is a piece of evidence to be considered at the final hearing subject to objections raised and evidence on record. 
• The petitioners may raise objections to the report through cross-examination. 
• The order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners at this stage. 
• The Court found no illegality in the impugned order. 
• The Court dismissed the petition, holding that merely because non-existing citations were referred due to the use of Artificial Intelligence Tool without due verification, the order would not be vitiated when the law stated in the order and its application is correct. 

Court's Caution Against Unregulated Use of AI Tools: 

• The Court cautioned against the unregulated use of AI tools in legal research and judicial writing. 
• Though AI tools are meant to increase efficiency, their unregulated use in judicial parlance gives rise to serious concerns. 
• The Court reprimanded the practice of blind reliance on AI tools without meaningful human oversight to verify the accuracy of assertions they generate. 
• More concerningly, AI tools may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration. 
• Justice Tilhari observed that application of actual intelligence should be preferred over AI. 
• AI tools should be used with caution and wisdom. 
• Trial Courts were advised to remain vigilant and to act with judicial application of mind while using AI in the process of judicial decision-making. 
• This ensures that judgments are premised on correct legal principles. 

What are the Concerns with AI Tools in Legal Practice? 

About: 

• AI tools are increasingly being used in legal research and judicial writing to increase efficiency. 
• However, their unregulated use raises serious concerns about accuracy and reliability. 
• AI tools may lack access to the complete body of relevant law. 
• They may not fully comprehend the legal query posed or may overlook material authorities. 
• AI systems can produce responses that appear persuasive yet are factually or legally incorrect. 
• AI tools may fabricate authorities or cite existing cases that are irrelevant to the issue under consideration. 

Privacy Concerns: 

• The use of AI tools in judicial decision-making raises violations of privacy concerns. 
• Unregulated use can damage confidence and trust in judicial decision-making. 

Need for Human Oversight: 

• Blind reliance on AI tools without meaningful human oversight is problematic. 
• People who employ AI for legal research should rigorously scrutinize its outputs. 
• All authorities cited by AI tools must be verified for accuracy and relevance. 
• Application of actual intelligence should be preferred over artificial intelligence. 
• AI tools should be used with caution and wisdom. 

Judicial Vigilance Required: 

• Trial Courts must remain vigilant while using AI in the process of judicial decision-making. 
• Courts must act with judicial application of mind to ensure judgments are premised on correct legal principles. 
• Verification of AI-generated citations is essential before relying on them in judicial orders. 

What is Order? 

About: 

• Section 2(14) of CPC defines order. 
• “Order” means formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. 
• Therefore, adjudication which is not a decree is order. 

Distinction Between Decree and order: 

• The distinction between decree and order is as follows: 
  • A decree can only be passed in a suit which commences on presentation of a plaint. An order may originate from a suit or may arise from proceeding commenced by presentation of application or petition.  
  • A decree may be preliminary, final or partly preliminary and partly final. An order cannot be a preliminary one. 
  • Usually, one decree is passed in a suit. However, several orders can be passed in a suit or proceeding. 
  • A first appeal invariably lies from a decree unless it is expressly provided that appeal shall not lie (for example Section 96(3) provides that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed with the consent of the parties).  However, only those orders are appealable which are expressly provided in the Code. (Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1). 
  • A second appeal lies to the High Court on certain grounds in a decree. However, there is no second appeal in case of appealable orders. 

Distinction between Decree, Order and Judgment: 

• Decree or order shall follow the pronouncement of judgment. 
• Judgment is followed by a decree. 
• It is not necessary to give a statement by the Judge in a decree/order although the statement is necessary in a judgment.