Gummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.
Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Record ID
- gummadi-usha-rani-anr-v-sure-mallikarjuna-rao-anr-2026-02-27
- Observed outcome
- The Supreme Court issued notices to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India, and stayed the Trial Court from proceeding based on the tainted Advocate Commissioner's report.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Supreme Court of India intervened after a Trial Court relied on AI-generated, non-existent case law in an Advocate Commissioner's report. The Court stayed the lower court proceedings, initiated a formal inquiry into the accountability for using synthetic precedents, and issued notices to high-level legal authorities to address the systemic integrity of the adjudicatory process.
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.
Court-appointed experts' reports must be verified — Supreme Court now polices AI-generated precedents in commissioner filings.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India following the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision petition.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The High Court identified the judgments as AI-generated.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.