‘Accuracy of orders is judge’s responsibility, not digital tools’
*UT-wide directions issued for strict compliance
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, June 6: In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for the judicial system, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has cautioned Judicial Officers against relying on unverified judicial precedents and Artificial Intelligence-generated legal research, emphasizing that the ultimate responsibility for the correctness, accuracy and authenticity of judicial orders rests solely upon the authoring judge.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
Delivering judgment in Principal, Woodland House School, Srinagar & Others Versus Shakeel Ahmad Malik case, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal devoted an extensive postscript to concerns arising from the record regarding the quality and reliability of judicial reasoning and citation practices.
The High Court noted that counsel for the petitioners had argued that the impugned order substantially relied upon certain judicial precedents without furnishing complete and accurate citations, without identifying the legal principles emerging from those decisions and without examining their applicability to the facts of the case.
Acting on the submission, the High Court undertook an independent verification of the judgments relied upon by the trial court. Upon examination, the High Court found that the citations attributed to the two principal judgments forming the basis of the impugned order were incorrect.
According to the judgment, in one instance, not only was the citation erroneous, but the title of the decision recorded in the impugned order could not be traced despite diligent search and verification. The High Court observed that the judgment does not appear to exist in the form in which it has been referred to by the trial court. In the second instance, although a decision bearing a similar title could be located, the citation assigned to it did not correspond with the decision and was found to be patently incorrect.
While clarifying that these defects did not warrant interference with the impugned order on merits, the High Court said the issue nevertheless raised concerns touching upon the quality and reliability of judicial reasoning.
“Reliance upon judicial precedents constitutes an integral component of the adjudicatory process and, therefore, the authorities cited in support of a conclusion must be accurate, authentic and capable of verification”, the High Court observed.
Justice Nargal further expressed concern over what the court described as a tendency in some cases to refer to the ratio of judgments by paraphrasing the perceived principle in the words of the author of the order rather than reproducing the relevant extracts from the judgments themselves.
The High Court observed that the ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) of a judgment must be gathered from what has actually been held by the court and not from an individual understanding of the decision. Reproduction of relevant extracts, the High Court said, ensures fidelity to the precedent relied upon and minimizes the possibility of unintended distortion of legal principles.
The High Court directly addressed the growing use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools and digital research platforms in legal and judicial work. The High Court acknowledged that such tools may serve as useful aids for research but categorically held that they cannot substitute judicial scrutiny and verification.
“Any proposition of law, citation, extract or precedent generated or suggested by an Artificial Intelligence tool must be independently verified from authentic and authoritative sources before being relied upon in a judicial order”, the High Court said, adding “Judicial Officers must remain mindful that the ultimate responsibility for the correctness, accuracy and authenticity of the contents of a judicial order rests solely upon the authoring judge”.
Emphasizing the need for caution, the High Court said that the use of technological tools must be accompanied by rigorous verification to ensure that judicial determinations are founded only upon genuine and verifiable legal authorities.
The High Court consequently issued a caution to Judicial Officers across the Union Territory to exercise greater care and circumspection while citing judicial precedents in future. It directed that judgments relied upon must be correctly cited, capable of verification and must faithfully reflect the proposition of law sought to be applied.
For the guidance of all Judicial Officers, the High Court laid down four specific directions. It emphasized that any citation, precedent, extract, factual assertion or proposition of law obtained through Artificial Intelligence platforms or similar technological tools must be independently verified from authentic and authoritative sources before being relied upon or incorporated in any judicial order.
Further, every precedent relied upon in a judicial order shall be accompanied by a complete and accurate citation; wherever a precedent constitutes the foundation of a finding or conclusion, the relevant extract of the judgment should, as far as practicable, be reproduced verbatim rather than paraphrased and citations obtained from unofficial compilations, secondary sources or electronic databases should be cross-verified with authentic sources before being incorporated into judicial orders.
The High Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar Judicial of both wings of the High Court for circulation among all Judicial Officers in the Union Territory for information and compliance.
The observations came while dismissing a petition filed by the Principal of Woodland House School and two academic supervisors challenging an order directing implementation of an earlier interim direction requiring payment of 50 percent salary to respondent Shakeel Ahmad Malik for a specified period.
The High Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that an interim order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC could not be executed. Relying on Section 36 CPC and Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that judicial orders, including interim orders, are executable and that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC are not the exclusive remedy for non-compliance.
The High Court found that the interim order dated June 14, 2022 had already been upheld by the appellate court as well as by the High Court in earlier proceedings and that the petitioners had repeatedly sought to resist its implementation.
Describing the petition as devoid of merit and a continuation of efforts to delay compliance with binding judicial directions, the High Court upheld the impugned order dated October 15, 2025, dismissed the petition and imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the petitioners. The High Court further directed compliance with the original interim order and permitted the executing court to adopt all permissible measures in law to secure its enforcement.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
