Supreme Court laments lawyer blaming client for AI-generated fake judgments

The Supreme Court recently criticised an advocate-on-record (AoR) for attempting to blame litigants after a compilation of judgments submitted before it was alleged to contain non-existent decisions generated using artificial intelligence (AI). [Deepak Raheja v. Omkara]

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that the lawyer had attempted to shift responsibility onto the appellants while feigning ignorance of the contents of the compilation.

The Court made the observations in a judgment delivered on October 15 while dismissing appeals challenging insolvency proceedings against two companies operating luxury hotels in Bengaluru and Pune.

"Before parting, we wish to advert to an undesirable incident that transpired in course of hearing. On behalf of the appellants, a compilation of judgments was placed on record to which the respondents raised immediate serious objection. According to them, the compilation was replete with AI generated non-existent judgments," the Court recorded.

The Bench noted that when questioned about the compilation, the AoR attempted to place the entire responsibility on the appellants. Senior counsel appearing for the appellants subsequently accepted responsibility and sought forgiveness on their behalf.

The respondents had also argued that the appellants should not be heard on merits because of their conduct in placing the disputed compilation before the Court. However, the Bench proceeded to hear the appeals while keeping the respondents' objection open.

The Court initially proposed imposing exemplary costs on the appellants over the incident. However, it Court ultimately refrained from imposing costs after being informed of the death of the first appellant, Deepak Raheja.

"It is for such reason that the order requiring payment of costs has been deleted by 'no order as to costs'," the Bench explained.

The judgment did not identify the allegedly fabricated decisions or record a separate finding that particular judgments had been generated using AI.

The controversy arose from appeals challenging insolvency proceedings against GSTAAD Hotels Private Limited, which operates the JW Marriott Hotel in Bengaluru, and Neo Capricorn Plaza Private Limited, which operates the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Pune.

The proceedings were initiated by Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited following defaults on loans originally extended by Piramal Finance. On merits, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the insolvency proceedings against the companies.

The Bench also held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not required to determine the precise outstanding liability before admitting an insolvency application.

It accordingly upheld the orders initiating insolvency proceedings against both hotel companies and directed that the resolution processes continue in accordance with law.

[Read Judgment]