Overview The Supreme Court has taken a strong stand against the use of AI to create non‑existent judgments. In a February 27, 2026 order, a two‑judge bench warned that relying on such fabricated precedents is not a mere error but a clear case of judicial misconduct. Key Developments Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notices to the Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India . Senior advocate Shyam Divan appointed to assist the Court in examining the matter. The Court directed that the trial court should not proceed on the basis of the advocate‑commissioner ’s report until the issue of fake judgments is resolved. Separate hearing on February 17, 2026 highlighted a growing trend of lawyers filing petitions drafted with AI tools containing fictitious citations like “Mercy vs Mankind”. Important Facts The controversy arose from a trial court order (August 2025) that relied on several judgments later found to be AI‑generated. The petitioners challenged the order, alleging that the cited precedents did not exist. The High Court recognized the AI‑generated nature of the judgments, cautioned the parties, and proceeded to decide the case on its merits, eventually affirming the trial court’s decision. The matter now stands before the apex court for a definitive ruling. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon multiple UPSC syllabus areas: Judicial accountability and ethics – Understanding how courts maintain integrity and the consequences of misconduct (GS2). Technology in governance – The role of AI in legal processes and the need for regulatory frameworks (GS3). Legal institutions – Functions of the Attorney General , Solicitor General , and the Bar Council of India (GS2). Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – The broader context of PILs being used to seek guidelines on political speeches, reflecting the judiciary’s proactive role (GS2). Way Forward The Supreme Court is likely to issue detailed guidelines on the admissibility of AI‑generated content in judicial proceedings. Potential measures may include: Mandating verification of cited judgments before reliance. Establishing a repository of authentic judgments accessible to courts and lawyers. Formulating ethical standards for the use of AI tools by legal practitioners. Strengthening the oversight role of the Bar Council of India to curb malpractice. These steps will safeguard the credibility of the Indian judicial system and ensure that technology augments, rather than undermines, the rule of law.