CourtSupreme Court of India
Citation2026 INSC 668
Decision2 July 2026
PracticeTechnology, AI & Judicial Process

The Crux

A judicial decision cannot stand where fake or hallucinated material has entered the adjudicatory process as supposed precedent. AI may assist legal work, but the existence and content of every authority relied upon must be independently verified.

What the Court held

The Supreme Court dealt with NCLT and NCLAT decisions that had relied on citations later found to include non-existent judgments and passages that did not exist in genuine authorities. The Court set aside the impugned decisions and restored the Section 7 IBC application for fresh consideration.

The Court adopted a zero-tolerance approach to fake or hallucinated precedent and stressed that technological assistance does not displace professional and judicial responsibility for verification.

Why it matters

The judgment is important well beyond insolvency practice. It establishes a professional discipline for AI-assisted legal research: a generated citation, quotation or proposition is only a research lead until the underlying authority has been located and checked.

CRUX practice note

Where AI or automated research tools are used, the safe workflow is source-first: locate the judgment on an official or authoritative repository, verify the case name and citation, read the relevant passage in context, and only then rely on the proposition in advice, pleadings or submissions.

Official source

The Supreme Court of India lists this decision in its official Landmark Judgment Summaries. The source below is the Court's official page and records the neutral citation, date, questions and decision.

Official Supreme Court source Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. — 2026 INSC 668 Always read the judgment itself before professional reliance. The Supreme Court's summary expressly states that summaries do not form part of the Court's reasons.

This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for the judgment text or advice on specific facts.

Back to Insights