Karnataka HC reviews trial court’s use of non-existent judgments in commercial dispute case
Bengaluru (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard a petition challenging a trial court order that allegedly cited non-existent Supreme Court and High Court judgments to reject an application for the return of plaint.
The high court has stayed further action by the trial court until the next hearing on February 5. The upcoming proceedings are expected to provide clarity on judicial reliance on AI-generated legal research and its impact on case rulings.
The petition was filed by Sammaan Capital Limited, a non-banking finance company, contesting the November 25, 2024 order of the trial court.
The case is linked to a commercial dispute involving Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited and the alleged non-payment of debt.
Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing Sammaan Capital, argued before Justice R Devdas that the trial court had referenced judgments that do not exist. He said that the order relied on fabricated case citations.
“If such non-existent judgments are relied upon, it is a sorry state of affairs. Sometimes AI-generated research gives wrong conclusions,” he argued.
The contentious trial court order was based on references to: M/s. Jalan Trading Co., Pvt. Ltd. Vs Millenium Telecom Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5860/2010, Supreme Court); M/s. Kvalrner Cimentation India Ltd. Vs M/s. Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6074/2018, Supreme Court); M/s. S.K. Gopal Vs M/s. UNI Deritend Ltd. (CS (Comm) 1114/2016, Delhi High Court).
The petitioners claim these judgments do not exist and were not introduced as evidence by either party during the hearing, raising serious concerns over the trial court’s credibility.
The dispute arose over non-payment of debt by Mantri Infrastructure. The plaintiffs initially filed a commercial suit but later withdrew it without permission to refile. They, then, filed a fresh suit under the civil jurisdiction, seeking injunctions against SARFAESI and NCLT proceedings, and a declaration that their debts had been discharged.
The trial court, however, rejected the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which sought the return of plaint—a decision now being contested before the high court.
The case has triggered a debate among legal professionals about the risks of unverified AI-generated research in court proceedings.
Supreme Court lawyer Vamshi Polsani criticised AI dependence, stating, “A lawyer’s analysis, research, and framing of arguments cannot be delegated to software or technology. AI can’t be depended upon.”
Advocate Vishwaja Rao echoed similar concerns, adding, “AI should be used to make legal work efficient, not a shortcut for accuracy.”
Former Telangana High Court judge Challa Kodanda Ram acknowledged AI’s usefulness but warned, “AI often gets legal principles right but can mix up citations. If the principle is correct, a citation error shouldn’t impact the outcome.”
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
