SC recommends action against Customs Officer who relied upon AI generated fake case laws

Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon non-existent AI generated case laws.

Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon case laws that were either non-existent or had fake citations and some of the case laws did not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5223 (2026) (09) abacus.in SC

In The instant case, the Commissioner of Customs had passed an Order imposing a huge penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for mis-declaring an consignment.

The challenge to the said penalty by the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court was dismissed.

Challenging the order of the High Court, the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court contended that several judgments and articles cited by the Commissioner were generated using Artificial Intelligence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upon verification of such judgments and articles found that the said case laws were either non-existent or had fake citations. Further investigation revealed that some of the case laws relied upon which did exist, did not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appeared to be a hallucination of AI.

Their Lordships observed that use of AI in the process of adjudication is not foreign. Quite the contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently released draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, calling for comments and suggestions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that use of AI as an assistive tool to speed up the decision making process cannot be denied. However, a note of caution must be sounded: assistance can never be substituted for adjudication. AI may well serve as training wheels but entrusting it with the pilot’s seat would be both imprudent and dangerous.

Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court together with direction that proceedings shall stand revived for being decided afresh by an officer of the same rank other than the one who passed the order under question.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court left it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the Commissioner of Customs as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment
• A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition
• ICAI issued Guidelines for responding to Tenders by Chartered Accountants