The development
In Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr., 2026 INSC 668, the Supreme Court considered NCLT and NCLAT decisions that had relied on citations later found to be non-existent or inaccurately attributed to existing authorities. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions.
What the Court emphasised
The judgment does not reject the use of artificial intelligence in legal or adjudicatory work. Its central distinction is between AI as an aid and AI as a substitute for verified legal reasoning. The Court stressed human control over adjudication and the need to verify authorities before they become part of a judicial decision.
Why it matters
The practical lesson extends beyond courts and tribunals. Lawyers, in-house teams and anyone using generative tools for legal research must treat machine-generated citations, quotations and propositions as unverified until checked against an authoritative source. Speed in research does not dilute responsibility for accuracy.
Supreme Court of India — Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668
This Insight is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is a concise commentary on the cited primary source and should not be relied upon as a substitute for the source text or advice on specific facts.