Supreme Court flagged alleged AI-generated fake judgments in case compilation filed for GSTAAD Hotels in insolvency appeal
A Supreme Court Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih flagged an "undesirable incident" in which a compilation of cases submitted for the appellants, GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd., allegedly contained AI-generated judgments that did not exist. The respondents immediately objected. When questioned by the Court, the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants tried to shift the blame onto the appellants, and senior counsel later took responsibility and sought forgiveness. The Court first considered exemplary costs but dropped them after learning of the first appellant's death, and it dismissed the appeals.
What the AI did
An AI tool allegedly generated court judgments that did not exist, and these were included in a compilation of cases submitted for the appellants. It has not been reported which AI tool was used or who used it.
First reported October 15, 2026 · Added to the register October 26, 2026 · 1 source
- When it happened
- Not stated in the sources
- First reported
- October 15, 2026
What this means for you
Could this affect you?
If your lawyers or legal team use AI to help draft court filings. Courts, opposing parties and clients who rely on legal filings can be misled when AI-generated, non-existent cases are cited, as allegedly happened here.
What to check
- Verify every citation in a filing against authoritative sources before submission.
- Set clear accountability for AI-assisted drafting among the lawyers responsible for a filing.
Areas of your AI programme this touches
Every fact and its source (7)
- Appellants named in the caseGSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd.“GSTAAD Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Neo Capricorn Plaza Pvt. Ltd.”[1]
- Bench that flagged the incidentJustice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih“A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih”[1]
- Objection raisedRespondents objected that the cited judgments did not exist“the respondents had immediately objected to the compilation, alleging that it contained judgments that did not exist”[1]
- Advocate-on-Record's responseShifted blame to the appellants“the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants sought to shift the entire blame on the appellants while at the same time feigning ignorance of what the compilation contained”[1]
- AdmissionSenior counsel took responsibility and sought forgiveness“senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently took responsibility for the incident and sought forgiveness on behalf of the appellants”[1]
- Costs outcomeProposed exemplary costs dropped after the first appellant's death“deleted the proposed costs and directed that there would be no order as to costs”[1]
- Party on whose behalf the compilation was submittedLawyers for the appellants“compilation of cases submitted on behalf of the appellants”[1]
Sources
- Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments In Compilation Filed By Partylivelaw.in · October 15, 2026
How this record is classified. Severity M (2/5): harm to individuals, or a policy breach with limited reach. OECD level: incident, an event in which an AI system led to actual harm. Evidence: Confirmed, meaning a company, official or court statement.
The facts in At a glance and in Every fact and its source are quoted from the sources listed. The summary, What the AI did and What this means for you are written from those sources and checked against them automatically before publication. Records reflect what has been disclosed, not everything that has happened. Incidents are found through news feeds and the GDELT Project.
