Supreme Court of India
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 11950 of 2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 668
Question of law
The legal question
Whether NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on nonexistent, wrongly cited, or falsely attributed precedents could remain legally valid, and what duties apply when AI-assisted legal research is used.
Holding
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court held that reliance on fabricated or unverified authorities taints the adjudicatory process. AI may assist legal work, but advocates, judges, tribunals, and appellate bodies retain a mandatory human duty to verify every cited authority from an authentic source.
Result
Outcome and directions
The NCLT and NCLAT orders were set aside. The section 7 IBC application was restored to the NCLT for a fresh merits decision, preferably within two weeks, with status quo to continue meanwhile. The Court expressed no opinion on the underlying insolvency merits.
Precedent record
Authority and later treatment
- Publication
- Citation recorded: 2026 INSC 668
- Primary source
- Official external judgment source linked
- Later treatment
- No later judicial treatment has yet been editorially verified for this record
Treatment labels are added only after the later judgment has been checked; absence of a label is not a statement that no later authority exists.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Independent analysis
Read Shahbaz Shah's legal commentary
In 2026 INSC 668, the Supreme Court of India set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders that relied on fake AI-generated precedents. Read the holding and critique.
Read full commentary →