Karnataka HC slams Bengaluru civil judge for citing fake SC rulings

The Karnataka High Court has ordered a probe and recommended disciplinary action against a civil court judge in Bengaluru for citing non-existent Supreme Court judgements in a ruling related to court jurisdiction.

In an order dated March 24, Justice R Devdas expressed serious concern over the civil judge’s conduct.

“What is more disturbing is that the judge has cited two decisions which were never delivered by the Supreme Court or any other court. This requires further probe and appropriate action,” the judge stated.

The High Court has also directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for further action.

Also Read: Elon Musk's X sues Indian govt over alleged censorship, IT Act violations

Case background

The civil court ruling came in response to a civil revision petition filed by Sammaan Capital Limited, challenging a November 25, 2024 order by the trial court.

The plaintiffs, Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had availed loans by pledging shares and later defaulted. After the lenders issued a notice in September 2024 seeking transfer of the pledged shares, the plaintiffs initially filed a commercial suit seeking an injunction. However, on October 1, 2024, the plaintiffs withdrew the commercial suit without obtaining the court’s permission and refiled the case as a civil suit before the City Civil Court.

Subsequently, the lenders filed an interlocutory application, arguing that the civil suit should be dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as the matter was commercial in nature and should be adjudicated only by the commercial court.

While rejecting the jurisdictional objection raised by the defendants, the civil judge referred to three judgments - including two purported Supreme Court rulings - that were found to be fabricated and non-existent in any legal database.

Also Read: Law can't be bent for you: Karnataka HC to Prajwal Revanna

HC slams plaintiffs

The High Court observed that the plaintiffs had employed an “ingenious method” to bypass proper legal procedure by shifting the case to a court that lacked jurisdiction. It also noted that some of the parties included in the refiled suit had no legal standing in the original dispute.

Justice Devdas further remarked, “Sometimes AI tools like ChatGPT generate fictional results. I don’t know what happened here, but these judgements do not exist.”

The Court allowed the revision petition, noting that the plaintiffs, having earlier filed a commercial suit, withdrew it without seeking the court’s permission and subsequently filed a civil suit on the same matter.