Supreme Court on AI-generated fake citations: what 2026 INSC 668 says
A plain-language summary of the Supreme Court's 2 July 2026 judgment on fake, AI-generated precedents, with paragraph references and a verification checklist.
Updated October 2026
On 2 July 2026 the Supreme Court of India set aside the orders of the NCLT and the NCLAT because they relied on precedents that were "fake and hallucinated" and did not exist. The judgment is Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668 (Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025), decided by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe. You can read it on the Court's website: official judgment (PDF).
This page summarises it in plain language. It is not legal advice, and the judgment itself is the authority. Read it before relying on anything here.
What happened
- The appellant, a suspended director of a corporate guarantor, challenged an NCLT order admitting an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the NCLAT's order upholding it (paragraphs 10 to 14).
- Senior counsel for the appellant pointed out that the judgments cited by the NCLT, as referred to by the NCLAT, were fake and non-existent. Even where a citation was real, the quoted paragraphs could not be traced in those judgments (paragraphs 13 to 14).
What the Court held
- Orders set aside. A decision based on fake or hallucinated material, the Court said, "is no decision at all". The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside and the Section 7 application was restored to be decided on its merits, with no opinion on the merits (paragraphs 17 to 21).
- Zero tolerance. The Court declared a zero-tolerance approach to producing, citing or using AI-generated precedents without verification, for both the Bar and the Bench. It called citing such judgments without verification misconduct on the part of an advocate (paragraphs 7 to 9).
- Bar Council of India. The Court directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee, deliberate on advocates submitting fake or hallucinated material, and prescribe guiding principles and the disciplinary action that will follow a violation (paragraphs 7 to 9).
- AI is not banned. The Court clarified that the judgment has no bearing on the rightful use of AI. It concerns presenting or relying on fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent (paragraphs 7 to 9).
What advocates should do
- Verify every authority against the official judgment before it goes into a petition, reply or note. See how to verify an Indian case citation.
- Check the quoted paragraph, not only the case name. A real citation can still be attached to words the judgment does not contain.
- Check citation formats (SCC, AIR, SCR and neutral INSC) for plausibility. See Indian citation checker and INSC neutral citations.
- Keep a record of where each authority came from, with the link to the official copy.
- Use AI that retrieves real judgments. A legal MCP connector such as Pledr lets Claude or ChatGPT search an index of Supreme Court of India judgments and return each passage with its citation, paragraph number and a link to the official PDF, so verification takes a click. Pledr covers Supreme Court judgments only, and you should still read the judgment.
Related guides
- Indian legal citation AI: how to use it safely
- AI legal research in India
- What is an Indian legal MCP?
Quick answers
What did the Supreme Court say about AI-generated fake citations?
In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. J&K Bank (2026 INSC 668, 2 July 2026) the Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on fake, hallucinated precedents, declared zero tolerance for citing AI-generated precedents without verification, and called doing so misconduct on the part of an advocate.
Does the judgment ban the use of AI in legal work?
No. The Court clarified that the judgment has no bearing on the rightful use of AI. It concerns presenting or relying on fake or hallucinated material as if it were a court precedent.
What did the Court direct the Bar Council of India to do?
To constitute a committee, deliberate on advocates submitting fake or hallucinated material before courts, and prescribe guiding principles and the disciplinary action that will follow a violation.