AP High Court Issues Caution on Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Proceedings
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgement addressing the growing use of artificial intelligence in judicial processes, specifically warning trial courts about the limitations and potential pitfalls of AI tools when rendering judgements.
Court's Stance on AI as an Assistive Tool Only
In a recent ruling from Vijayawada, the High Court made clear observations about the appropriate role of artificial intelligence in judicial work. The court emphasized that if AI is utilized at all, it should serve strictly as an information-gathering mechanism rather than a tool for drafting judgements or making judicial determinations.
Case Background: Non-Existent Case Law Citations
The matter came before the High Court through a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that had cited non-existent case laws generated by an AI tool. The original case involved defendants Gummadi Usha Rani and Sunitha, who had filed an interlocutory application alleging collusion between an advocate commissioner and the plaintiffs in a property identification matter from July 2025.
The trial court had rejected the defendants' application, stating that a commissioner's report constitutes merely evidence and that allegations of collusion require proof that can only be tested during trial proceedings, not at the interlocutory stage.
AI-Generated Citations and Judicial Response
When the defendants challenged the trial court order in the High Court, arguing that it relied on non-existent case laws, the High Court called for an explanation from the trial court judge. The judge admitted that the four citations in question were generated using an AI tool she had accessed for the first time and that she could not locate these references in any legal database.
Justice Tilhari's Observations on AI Limitations
Justice Ravinath Tilhari, presiding over the case, made several crucial observations about artificial intelligence in its current developmental stage. He noted that AI functions primarily as an organizational tool capable of assisting with tasks like information organization and record summarization.
Justice Tilhari highlighted several critical limitations of current AI technology:
- AI lacks consciousness and moral reasoning capabilities
- AI cannot properly weigh evidence or appreciate nuances of human conduct
- AI systems sometimes generate non-existent judgements and case references
Judicial Caution and Human Intelligence Emphasis
The High Court stressed that judicial officers must exercise extreme caution regarding errors in AI-generated content. Justice Tilhari emphasized that judicial officers should depend primarily on human intelligence when rendering judgements rather than becoming overly reliant on technological tools.
The court made a particularly important distinction regarding legal principles versus citation accuracy, observing that the real test of a judicial order lies not in the accuracy of citations but in the correctness of the legal principles applied. An order does not stand or fall based solely on citation strength, and even erroneous or non-existent references cannot invalidate a decision if the underlying legal reasoning remains sound.
High Court's Final Ruling
After thorough examination, the High Court found that despite the flawed citations generated by AI, the trial court had applied correct legal principles in its decision. Consequently, the High Court determined that no interference was warranted with the trial court order and dismissed the civil revision petition.
This judgement establishes important guidelines for the judicial use of artificial intelligence in India, particularly emphasizing that while AI can serve as an information-gathering assistant, it cannot replace human judicial reasoning, evidence evaluation, and the application of legal principles that require nuanced understanding of human behavior and moral considerations.
