Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.
Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2026
IndiaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent. Outcome: Dismissed. Trial Court relied on several judgments in the Advocate Commissioner's Report that the High Court found to be AI‑generated, non‑existent and fake; Supreme Court issued notices, restrained use of the report and directed further examination of consequences and accountability.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment (note year '1071' is manifestly erroneous); High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court determined it to be AI‑generated and not a genuine precedent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent.
- Why it matters now
- Court-appointed experts' reports must be verified — Supreme Court now polices AI-generated precedents in commissioner filings.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent. Outcome: Dismissed. Trial Court relied on several judgments in the Advocate Commissioner's Report that the High Court found to be AI‑generated, non‑existent and fake; Supreme Court issued notices, restrained use of the report and directed further examination of consequences and accountability.
Operational lesson
Court-appointed experts' reports must be verified — Supreme Court now polices AI-generated precedents in commissioner filings.
Record details
CourtSupreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 27, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeDismissed
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Dismissed
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment (note year '1071' is manifestly erroneous); High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court determined it to be AI‑generated and not a genuine precedent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Trial Court relied on this alleged judgment in the Advocate Commissioner's Report; High Court found it AI‑generated and non‑existent. Outcome: Dismissed. Trial Court relied on several judgments in the Advocate Commissioner's Report that the High Court found to be AI‑generated, non‑existent and fake; Supreme Court issued notices, restrained use of the report and directed further examination of consequences and accountability.
- Why does Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. matter for legal AI risk?
- Court-appointed experts' reports must be verified — Supreme Court now polices AI-generated precedents in commissioner filings.
- What does the public record establish about Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.