SYNTHETIC LAW AND STRICT LIABILITY: RECLASSIFYING AI JUDICIAL HALLUCINATIONS AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
AUTHOR – RIMJHIM BIYANI, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
BEST CITATION – RIMJHIM BIYANI, SYNTHETIC LAW AND STRICT LIABILITY: RECLASSIFYING AI JUDICIAL HALLUCINATIONS AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 06-11, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
The swift assimilation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the Indian legal ecosystem has precipitated a fundamental crisis of evidentiary authenticity, significantly altering the epistemological basis of the adversarial system. In recent times, the global judicial system has witnessed a phenomenal increase in the incidence of ghost precedents – fictitious citations of law hallucinated by probabilistic algorithms and presented to courts as established, sovereign law. This research critically evaluates the necessary jurisprudential shift against unverified algorithmic reliance, catalysed by the Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in Christian Louboutin Sas v. M/s Shoe Boutique[1]. Operating in tandem with global cautionary tales such as the Mata v. Avianca sanctions in the United States[2], the Indian judiciary is presently confronted with the urgent need to transition from a permissive, error-tolerance framework to a regime of strict, misconduct-based liability.
Situating this paradigm shift within the contemporary statutory framework of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023[3], and the ethical mandates of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961[4], this paper systematically deconstructs the defense of automatic reliance and technological ignorance. Furthermore, the study examines the constitutional imperatives of algorithmic accountability, arguing that the deployment of unverified digital outputs in adjudicatory processes violates a litigant’s Article 21[5] right to a reasoned order and fundamentally breaches the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, this paper posits that the formalization of a sui generis Duty of Verification – enforced via mandatory human-in-the-loop audits and binding technological affidavits under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – is an absolute necessity.[6] It concludes that the delegation of core legal reasoning to AI without rigorous human oversight constitutes a catastrophic breach of the fiduciary bond between the Bar and the Bench.
[1] Christian Louboutin Sas v. M/s Shoe Boutique, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1704.
[2] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461, 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).
[3] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
[4] Advocates Act, 1961, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1961, § 35 (India).
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[6] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).