All news stories

Showing 401–403 of 403 news stories, newest first. Back to News

1. Supreme Court rethinks livestreaming, seeks impact reports from High Courts

   News · 27 Jul 2026

   Observing that courts cannot function as a round-the-clock entertainment channel, the Supreme Court has revisited its livestreaming policy and sought reports from High Courts on the impact of livestreaming. This pairs directly with item 2 and signals a broader retrenchment on open-court digital access. It matters to advocates because livestreamed conduct has become a reputational variable, and to legal-tech because livestream archives are a data source. A strong companion piece to the recordings ban — together they suggest a coordinated policy shift on courtroom transparency.

2. Supreme Court signals women's reservation must rise proportionately if Bar Council seats increase

   News · 27 Jul 2026

   The Supreme Court has indicated that if Bar Council seats are increased, women's reservation should also be increased proportionately. Direct institutional impact on every enrolled advocate in India, including the Karnataka State Bar Council. It touches Bar Council election composition, eligibility, and the internal politics of state bars ahead of forthcoming elections. Given that Bar Council governance affects enrolment, discipline, and welfare schemes for lakhs of advocates, this is high-priority for an advocate-facing publication despite being an indication rather than a final ruling.

3. Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLT Order Over AI-Hallucinated Case Citations, Directs Bar Council to Frame Guidelines

   News · 24 Jul 2026

   New Delhi, July 2, 2026 The Supreme Court has set aside a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) judgment after finding that the tribunal had relied on case law that did not exist — precedents generated by an artificial intelligence tool and cited before it without verification. The ruling, delivered by a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, is the Court's strongest statement yet on the use of AI in judicial proceedings and sets out a zero-tolerance standard that lawyers across the country will now have to reckon with. The case The appeal, Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11950/2025), arose out of an insolvency dispute. NCLT Mumbai had, in August 2024, admitted Essel Infraprojects Ltd. into corporate insolvency resolution on a Section 7 application filed by Jammu and Kashmir Bank over a claimed default of roughly ₹87.43 crore, tied to a ₹200 crore facility extended to Pan India Utilities Distribution Company Ltd. and secured by an Essel corporate guarantee and a mortgage in Borivali, Mumbai. The NCLAT upheld that order in September 2025. On further appeal, the appellant's counsel discovered that several of the "precedents" the NCLT had leaned on to justify its order simply did not exist — they had been produced by an AI tool and never verified before being placed on record. What the Court held The Bench held that a judgment built on fabricated authorities cannot stand, since reliance on hallucinated material strikes at the integrity of the adjudicatory process itself. It set aside both the NCLT and NCLAT orders and sent the insolvency application back for fresh adjudication. Going further, the Court declared that courts and tribunals must adopt a zero-tolerance approach toward unverified AI-generated precedents, and that an advocate who cites such fabricated judgments without checking them commits professional misconduct. It directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee to examine the issue and prescribe guiding principles — including disciplinary consequences — for members of the bar who file AI-hallucinated material as though it were genuine case law. At the same time, the Bench was careful to frame this as a call for verification rather than a rejection of the technology itself, describing AI as a tool meant to assist adjudication while human judgment remains firmly in control at every stage. Why it matters This is not an isolated flashpoint. The ruling follows a string of similar incidents before Indian tribunals and comes shortly after the Supreme Court circulated a draft framework, the "Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026," inviting feedback from legal experts and the public on how AI should be governed inside the justice system. For practising advocates, the takeaway is immediate: any citation sourced through an AI assistant — whether a general-purpose chatbot or a legal-research platform — must be cross-checked against an authoritative database (SCC Online, Indian Kanoon, or the official court website) before it is filed. Citing a case that turns out not to exist is no longer a harmless drafting slip; the Court has now classified it as misconduct, with the BCI expected to lay down the disciplinary framework in the months ahead. [Source: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11950/2025, decided 2 July 2026]