AI-generated fake precedents cannot sustain adjudicatory orders; reliance on hallucinated citations vitiates the decision entirely.

Adjudicatory orders founded on fake, non-existent or hallucinated AI-generated precedents are not sustainable in law. Reliance on such fabricated or wrongly attributed citations contaminates the decision-making process, subverts judicial integrity, and renders the order no decision in the eyes of law; the impugned orders were therefore set aside and the matter restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The judgment also records zero tolerance for citation or use of such material by both the Bar and the Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether adjudicatory orders founded on fake, non-existent or hallucinated AI-generated precedents can be sustained in law, and whether such orders require to be set aside.

Analysis: The judgment records that the adjudicating authority relied upon citations and passages that were non-existent, incorrectly attributed, or otherwise hallucinated, and that the appellate tribunal failed to detect the defect. It holds that a decision based on fake or hallucinated material as precedent contaminates the adjudicatory process, subverts the integrity of judicial determination, and amounts to no decision in the eyes of law. The Court also emphasises zero tolerance for the citation or reliance on such material by both the Bar and the Bench.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and were set aside, with the matter restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---