“Disturbing Act”: Karnataka HC Flags Fake SC Citations by Civil Court Judge

 The Karnataka High Court in Samaan Capital Limited v Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited has directed that action be taken against a city civil court judge for citing non-existent Supreme Court judgements while passing an order in a jurisdiction-related application.

Justice R Devdas, in a strongly worded order dated March 24, 2025, called the conduct of the judge “disturbing” and ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for further necessary steps.

“What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law,” the High Court noted.

Fake Judgements Cited to Reject Application

The High Court was hearing a revision petition filed by Samaan Capital Ltd, which challenged the city civil court’s order in a matter related to jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, appearing for the petitioners, informed the court that the application questioning the court’s jurisdiction was rejected solely on the basis of case laws that do not exist in any legal repository — including official court websites and case law databases.

Navadgi remarked that the judgements appeared to be “fraudulently manufactured,” and added,

“It happens sometimes when one uses artificial intelligence programs and chatbots such as ChatGPT; AI might generate fictional results. It sometimes makes things up. I don’t know what happened here, but these judgements do not exist.”

High Court’s Observations in Samaan Capital Limited v Mantri Infrastructure Private Limited

Taking serious note of the allegations, Justice Devdas allowed the revision petition and observed that the plaintiffs in the original suit had previously withdrawn a commercial case without seeking liberty and then refiled the same case before a civil court — an act seen as forum shopping.

“This is an ingenious method adopted by the plaintiffs seeking to maintain a suit before a court which had no jurisdiction,” the order stated.

The High Court’s direction to the Chief Justice signals potential disciplinary action against the judge involved.