From the journal

India Supreme Court Sets Aside Judgment Relying on AI-Hallucinated Precedents, July 2026

The Supreme Court of India, in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (C.A. No. 11950/2025, 2026 INSC 668), set aside judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal and the appellate tribunal on 2 July 2026, after finding that both tribunals had cited non-existent judicial precedents generated by artificial intelligence. The Court declared human oversight mandatory at every stage at which AI output is used as legal authority.

2 min read

The Supreme Court of India issued judgment in Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025, 2026 INSC 668) on 2 July 2026. The case arose from proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the appellate tribunal, both of which issued decisions citing judicial precedents that did not exist. The Supreme Court set aside both tribunal judgments in their entirety on final appeal.

The tribunals had relied on case citations generated by an AI tool through hallucination: the production of plausible but false content presented as binding precedent. The Court identified no specific statutory provision as the ground of invalidity. The ground was a constitutional due process principle: a judicial or quasi-judicial decision must rest on authentic legal authority. The Court held that any decision founded on fake or hallucinated AI-generated material is unsustainable in law and must be set aside. It also declared a resolve to use AI in case management while maintaining absolute human control over adjudication at every stage.

Companies in insolvency and restructuring proceedings before the NCLT, creditors, and corporate debtors must scrutinize tribunal-issued decisions for reliance on AI-generated citations. Counsel appearing before Indian tribunals must independently verify every cited authority before relying on it in written arguments. Parties who identify an adverse ruling based on fabricated citations have a constitutional basis to seek annulment on due process grounds through appeal or revision.

The ruling does not create an AI-specific statutory prohibition in Indian law, as no such legislation currently exists. The judgment adds to precedent in multiple jurisdictions addressing AI hallucinations in litigation and follows earlier judicial censures in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court did not prescribe technical standards for AI tools used in legal research, leaving compliance to existing professional conduct rules and tribunal procedural regulations.

Licentium advises technology companies, financial institutions, and operators deploying AI systems in regulated environments on legal risk and multi-jurisdiction liability. We can assist with AI governance assessments, dispute strategy where AI misuse has affected proceedings, and regulatory analysis for clients operating in the Indian market. Work we undertake includes AI liability advisory, technology dispute strategy, professional conduct risk analysis, and multi-jurisdiction AI regulatory mapping.

Source: Supreme Court of India, Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., C.A. No. 11950/2025, 2026 INSC 668, 2 July 2026

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

Foreign Ownership of a Delaware or Wyoming Entity: Federal Tax Classification, Information Reporting, Withholding, and State Duties

A non-U.S. person may own a Delaware or Wyoming LLC or a Delaware corporation, yet formation alone does not settle the federal tax result, the reporting burden, confidentiality, or the right to work in the country. This part takes the U.S. entity as chosen and examines classification, Form 5472 reporting, source and effectively connected income, partner and shareholder withholding, tax residence and immigration, duties beyond the formation state, real property and estate exposure, and treaty and home-country dependencies.

Illia Prokopiev

Structuring Cross-Border Digital-Asset Ventures (Part 2)

A cross-border digital-asset group must allocate protocol stewardship, token issuance, customer-facing regulated services, pooled investment, treasury, and founder functions before it selects any jurisdiction. The question presented is where each of those functions can lawfully sit across sixteen jurisdictions and the European Union and EEA overlay, as of 27 August 2026.

Illia Prokopiev

Function-First Entity Design for Cross-Border Digital-Asset Ventures

Cross-border digital-asset ventures often separate several legal roles. Those roles include the venture issuer, operating company, customer-facing licensee, token issuer, pooled vehicle, treasury body, and protocol administrator. The Question Presented is which roles eight jurisdictions can support as of 27 August 2026.