Skip to content

Incident Tracker / India

Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh & Ors, CM(M) 1909/2025

·High Court of Delhi·INOther

In India, the Delhi High Court (25 September 2025) recorded that a petitioner's case relied on judicial precedents that do not exist and on quoted passages absent from real judgments — reported as ChatGPT-generated. Justice Kathpalia allowed the petition to be dismissed as withdrawn after respondents exposed the fabricated, AI-generated citations.

Court
High Court of Delhi
Date
2025-09-25
Who used the AI
Not recorded
AI tool
Not identified in the record
Conduct
In a petition challenging trial-court interlocutory orders, the petitioner cited judicial precedents that do not exist and quoted passages absent from real judgments. Respondents' counsel flagged the citations as non-existent and AI-generated; the order records the fabrications but does not itself name a tool. (Press attributes them to ChatGPT.)
Outcome
Other
Penalty
No monetary penalty recorded
Regulatory outcome
No separate regulatory disposition recorded
Status
Verified against listed sources
Last checked
2026-09-11

What was fabricated or misused

  • Some judicial precedents cited on behalf of the petitioner did not exist; the order did not list them
  • Quoted portions in some cited precedents did not exist; the order did not list them

What the court said

“Petitioner has assailed orders dated 18.09.2025, 20.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 of the learned trial court.”
High Court of Delhi, [1]
“All learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for respondents submit that they would take appropriate steps since some of the judicial precedents cited on behalf of petitioner do not even exist and in some of the precedents, the quoted portions do not exist.”
High Court of Delhi, [1]
“As requested, the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn.”
High Court of Delhi, [2]

Timeline

  1. Trial court made the first interlocutory order later challenged in CM(M) 1909/2025.
  2. Trial court made the second challenged interlocutory order.
  3. Trial court made the third challenged interlocutory order.
  4. Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and applications as withdrawn.

Why this case matters

The Delhi order is spare, but its limits are useful. It records fabricated Indian legal material in open court while leaving the alleged AI tool to press reporting. Unlike Bandla v SRA or MS Bangladesh, the judge did not name a lawyer, list the false authorities, or make a referral. The record therefore marks a lower-information response: the matter ended by withdrawal, with respondents left to take any further steps. For the tracker, that distinction matters because it separates a court-recorded fabrication from an adjudicated AI-misuse sanction.

Practice note

An advocate relying on precedent in urgent trial-court challenges should verify the existence of each case and the quoted passage before filing. The check should be against an official court database or a recognised legal database, not a web snippet. If an opponent identifies a non-existent case or missing quotation, the filing should be corrected or withdrawn with a clear explanation.

Primary sources for this incident

Related regulation records for this incident

No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.

Similar incidents on the record

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Greenopolis Welfare Association v. Narender Singh & Ors, CM(M) 1909/2025”, safelegalai.com/tracker/greenopolis-v-narender-singh (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →