You've seen the WhatsApp forwards. "Supreme Court angry with lawyers using AI." "Advocate cited a judgment that doesn't exist." Maybe someone in your bar room has said it out loud: AI is dangerous, don't touch it.
Now picture the other side. It is 11 pm, the bail is listed at 10:30 tomorrow, your junior has left, and the FIR is a blurry Hindi photo. AI could give you a first draft in minutes. Should you use it?
The short answer: yes, but never file what you have not checked. The courts are not punishing advocates for using AI. They are reacting to advocates who file AI output without reading it. This article explains what the Supreme Court and High Courts actually said in 2026, why AI invents judgments, and a 10-point checklist that keeps you safe.
What the Supreme Court said in 2026
17 February 2026: "absolutely uncalled for"
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, called it an alarming trend: pleadings were citing judgments and quotations that were either non-existent or inaccurate. The CJI said lawyers using AI this way was "absolutely uncalled for."
Two examples came up in the hearing:
- Justice Nagarathna referred to a fictitious case cited as "Mercy vs Mankind".
- She also noted that some lawyers cited genuine Supreme Court judgments but quoted passages that were not in the actual ruling.
The second example matters more than the first. A fake case name is easy to catch. A real judgment with an invented paragraph is not, unless you open the judgment and read it.
27 February 2026: fake AI judgments in a decision are "misconduct"
A different Bench, Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, took up a case in which a trial court in Andhra Pradesh had dismissed an objection in a property injunction suit by relying on four judgments that did not exist. The Court said a decision based on such fake judgments "is not an error in the decision making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow."
It issued notice to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India, and appointed Senior Advocate Shyam Divan as amicus curiae.
May 2026: the Bar Council asked to form an expert committee
In May 2026, the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee of experts to examine the use of AI in court proceedings, without passing a formal order at that stage. Rules or guidance for advocates may follow. Watch for them.
What High Courts have done
| Court | What happened | Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Bombay High Court (January 2026) | Imposed ₹50,000 costs on a litigant whose written submissions relied on a judgment the court could not trace. The judge said an advocate using AI carries the responsibility to cross-verify references. | Costs are real, and the court expects the lawyer to verify. |
| Delhi High Court | A petition was withdrawn after it was shown to cite a judgment that did not exist, and to quote paragraphs 73 and 74 of a judgment that has only 27 paragraphs. The respondents said the extracts appeared to come from ChatGPT. | Opposing counsel will check your citations. So will the Bench. |
Why AI invents judgments
General chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini generate text that sounds right. They don't look up a database of judgments before writing. When you ask for "a Supreme Court judgment on default bail", a general chatbot can produce a believable case name, a citation in the right format and a quotation in judicial language, all invented. This is called hallucination.
It is most likely when:
- you ask for authorities on a narrow point,
- you ask for exact paragraph numbers or quotations,
- the law changed recently (the BNS, BNSS and BSA came into force on 1 July 2024, and many models learned mostly from CrPC-era material), or
- you ask in a way that assumes an answer exists ("give me 5 judgments holding that…").
The tool is not lying. It doesn't know the difference. You do.
What this means for your practice
- AI for the first draft is fine. Structure, facts from the FIR, the format, grounds and prayer: let AI save you two hours.
- Every authority is your responsibility. The signature on the vakalatnama and the pleading is yours, not the software's.
- Don't let a forwarded message decide for you. Advocates who learn to use AI carefully will draft faster than those who avoid it. The skill that matters is verification.
A 10-point checklist before you file anything AI helped draft
- Open every judgment you cite on an official source: the Supreme Court website, the High Court website, eCourts, or a reporter you trust. If you can't find it, delete it.
- Read the paragraph you quote, in the judgment itself. Match the paragraph number and the exact words.
- Check the citation format: year, volume, reporter and page, or the neutral citation. Fake citations often look right but don't match.
- Check that it is still good law. Has it been overruled, distinguished or referred to a larger Bench?
- Check the section numbers against the bare act. For matters after 1 July 2024, confirm the BNS, BNSS or BSA number. See our CrPC to BNSS conversion table and IPC to BNS finder.
- Check the facts against the record. Names, dates, FIR number, police station and sections must match the FIR and orders, not the AI's summary.
- Never upload what you shouldn't. Don't put client documents into a public chatbot that may store or train on them. Use a tool that keeps data private.
- Prefer tools that show their sources. A tool that links each section and judgment to its source lets you verify in minutes. One that gives answers without sources leaves all the checking to you.
- Keep a short verification note in the file: which authorities you checked, where, and when. If anything is questioned, you can show your diligence.
- When in doubt, cite less. One verified, on-point judgment is worth more than five unverified ones.
Our guide on how to verify a citation walks through steps 1 to 4 in detail.
What to tell your client and your juniors
- Clients may ask whether you "use AI". A good answer: "I use AI to prepare drafts faster. Every legal point and citation is checked by me before anything is filed."
- Juniors are the most likely to paste chatbot output straight into a draft. Make the checklist above part of your chamber's routine. A junior who verifies is worth more than one who drafts fast.
How Juniorlawyer handles this
We built Juniorlawyer for Indian courts, knowing that one wrong citation can cost an advocate their credibility. We won't tell you it never makes a mistake. No AI tool can honestly say that. Here is what we do instead:
- Treat our citations as unverified too. Any section or judgment Juniorlawyer suggests should go through the checklist above before it goes into a filing. Our citation verification guide says the same.
- Drafts start from your record. Upload the FIR, the order or the chargesheet, including a Hindi photo, and the draft is built from those documents.
- The new codes are built in. Drafts use BNS, BNSS and BSA numbering for matters after 1 July 2024, with the old section where a matter needs it.
- You stay the lawyer. Every draft opens in Word for you to check, edit and sign.
Try it on your next bail with the AI bail application drafter. Read our editorial policy on how we review legal content, and our explainer on whether AI drafting is admissible in Indian courts.
In Hindi: क्या वकील AI का इस्तेमाल कर सकते हैं?
हाँ। 2026 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने AI पर रोक नहीं लगाई। अदालत की चिंता उन याचिकाओं पर है जिनमें ऐसे फ़ैसलों का हवाला दिया गया जो मौजूद ही नहीं हैं। AI से पहला ड्राफ्ट बनाइए, लेकिन हर फ़ैसला और हर धारा आधिकारिक स्रोत पर खोलकर पढ़िए, फिर ही दाखिल कीजिए।