Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / India

Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, 2026 INSC 668

Supreme Court of India

last revised 2026-07-02last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

Judgment (guidance)In forceVerification dutyProhibition

map categories:Duty to verify AI outputSanctions for AI misuseAI barred from deciding casesBar guidance on generative AI

Supreme Court judgment of 2 July 2026 setting aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on six non-existent, AI-hallucinated precedents. A decision resting on fake or hallucinated material is no decision in law; Bar and Bench owe a zero-tolerance duty to verify AI-generated authority, and the Bar Council of India was directed to frame guidelines and disciplinary measures.

Applies to
lawyers, judges, court-staff, all
Effective
02 Jul 2026
Current version
Judgment · 02 Jul 2026
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
indiankanoon.org/doc/113338666/

What the document requires

  • Orders founded even partly on fake or hallucinated precedents must be set aside.
  • Advocates commit professional misconduct by citing AI-generated judgments without verification.
  • Courts and tribunals must retain absolute control over AI in adjudication and must not trust authorities they cannot verify.
  • Bar Council of India to constitute a committee on AI use by advocates and prescribe disciplinary consequences.

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Judgmentcurrent2026-07-02Original judgment (Narasimha and Aradhe JJ).official

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, 2026 INSC 668" (Supreme Court of India, Judgment, 2026-07-02), safelegalai.com/regulation/india/in-sc-pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jk-bank-2026 (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in India