Manufacturing Justice: SC on AI in Courts | UPSCPDF
UPSCPDF Editorial Analysis: Supreme Court
Key Takeaways | Quick Facts Box | How the Judiciary Reached This Moment | Two Rulings — Anchor Them Correctly | Constitutional & Legal Foundations | Comparative Best Practices | The Governance & Regulatory Architecture | International & Expert Frameworks | Expert Recommendations — Takshashila Institution | Marks Breakdown | More Mains Angles (Multi-GS) | Additional Essay Angles | Key Actors & Stakeholders | Quick Revision Tags | 📚 Explore More UPSC Editorial Analyses
The apex court likens AI "hallucinations" to methyl isocyanate — invisible, insidious, catastrophic. Decoding the zero-tolerance standard on fabricated precedents, the draft AI-in-Courts Rules, 2026, and the principle of human primacy in the age of the machine. On 2 July 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside orders of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the Essel Infraprojects insolvency case, after finding that the NCLT had relied on fictitious, AI-generated legal citations — a lapse the appellate tribunal failed to catch. The Court declared that any judgment influenced by even an iota of fake or hallucinated AI material is "no decision in the eyes of law" and directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formulate strict norms and disciplinary standards for advocates who cite unverified machine-generated authorities. The ruling sits squarely in GS-2 and GS-3: it tests judicial
⏱ Reading time: ~32 min
