Overview The Supreme Court has warned that citing judgments fabricated by AI is a growing menace worldwide. The observation arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by the director of a company challenging remarks made by the High Court that had identified a non‑existent judgment generated by ChatGPT . Key Developments Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that AI‑generated fake citations are “rampant” not only in India but globally. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act case highlighted the issue when the Bombay High Court observed a citation to a fictitious judgment “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”. The High Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the appellant, directing payment to the High Court Employees Medical Fund. The Supreme Court, while expunging the remarks as a matter of indulgence, reiterated that the practice must be curbed and warned of possible referral to the Bar Council for repeat offenders. Important Facts Bombay High Court identified tell‑tale signs of AI‑drafted submissions: green‑box tick‑marks, bullet‑point formatting, and repetitive language. Law clerks were unable to locate the cited judgment, leading to waste of judicial time. Another Supreme Court bench has already taken cognizance of similar AI‑generated fake citations in a trial‑court judgment. Relevance for UPSC Understanding the judicial response to AI misuse is crucial for GS2 (Polity) as it touches upon the integrity of the legal system, judicial accountability, and the need for regulatory frameworks governing emerging technologies. It also links to GS3 (Science & Technology) where aspirants must assess the policy implications of AI in governance, data authenticity, and the balance between technological assistance and ethical safeguards. Way Forward Courts should institute mandatory verification protocols for AI‑generated references before accepting them as evidence. Law schools and bar councils need to incorporate training on responsible AI usage and citation verification. Legislature may consider framing specific guidelines or amendments to existing procedural codes to penalise deliberate submission of fabricated judgments. Stakeholders must promote AI literacy among lawyers to prevent inadvertent reliance on spurious outputs.