"No Decision at All": Fair Procedure and the Judicial Duty to Verify After Pooja Ramesh Singh

In July of 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that a decision based on an AI's hallucination as to what the law is, is "no decision at all." Although the Supreme Court made a good decision on a very limited constitutional basis, the Supreme Court's holding will be an ex post facto blunt instrument, unless there is a procedural obligation placed on the decision maker. Nullity is based on the constitutional rights to fair procedure (Articles 14 and 21) and the requirement of a reasoned decision. A default rule of nullity is better than a materiality test. The most appropriate response would be a technology-neutral duty to verify each authority relied upon against a primary source, to document that verification, and to notify the parties when the court relies upon authority that neither party has cited. When the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts (2026) are reviewed by the Supreme Court, the proposed regulations state that the verification exemption will not apply to legal authority.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23838206
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

"No Decision at All": Fair Procedure and the Judicial Duty to Verify After Pooja Ramesh Singh

Bhargavi Shabaraya, Shivanshu Singh
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Artificial Intelligence in Law
article

"No Decision at All": Fair Procedure and the Judicial Duty to Verify After Pooja Ramesh Singh

Bhargavi Shabaraya, Shivanshu Singh
article en

Abstract

In July of 2026, the Supreme Court of India held that a decision based on an AI's hallucination as to what the law is, is "no decision at all." Although the Supreme Court made a good decision on a very limited constitutional basis, the Supreme Court's holding will be an ex post facto blunt instrument, unless there is a procedural obligation placed on the decision maker. Nullity is based on the constitutional rights to fair procedure (Articles 14 and 21) and the requirement of a reasoned decision. A default rule of nullity is better than a materiality test. The most appropriate response would be a technology-neutral duty to verify each authority relied upon against a primary source, to document that verification, and to notify the parties when the court relies upon authority that neither party has cited. When the Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts (2026) are reviewed by the Supreme Court, the proposed regulations state that the verification exemption will not apply to legal authority.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Artificial Intelligence in Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon