Parties and procedural roles: Pooja Ramesh Singh was the employee, borrower or claimant-appellant challenging action by Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited. The Bank was the respondent defending its contractual, disciplinary or recovery decision; the dispute required reconciliation of private-law rights with applicable statutory and fairness requirements. Supreme Court proceedings generally describe the sides as petitioner/appellant and respondent, or accused and prosecution, rather than plaintiff and defendant. In a suo motu case or constitutional reference, the Court or President initiates the proceeding and governments, authorities and affected stakeholders assist or respond.

Detailed story and problem statement: Pooja Ramesh Singh appealed against Jammu and Kashmir Bank after insolvency tribunals relied on non-existent or AI-hallucinated precedents while deciding proceedings concerning the corporate debtor. The Bank defended the underlying insolvency action. The controversy became legally significant because the challenged action affected liberty, equality, institutional fairness, democratic accountability, property, family relations, professional rights or another protected interest. The side seeking relief said that the governing legal safeguards had not been honoured; the opposing side relied on its statutory power, the record and the need for workable administration or enforcement.

Procedural development: NCLT/NCLAT insolvency litigation used false authorities; Supreme Court verified the record, remitted the matter and issued AI-use warnings on 2 July 2026. The matter reached the Supreme Court as C.A. No. 11950/2025. Against this factual and procedural setting, the Court had to resolve: What is the legal effect of a judgment founded on fabricated AI citations, and what duties do lawyers and judges have when using generative AI?

The appellant showed that cited authorities did not exist and argued the decision was legally contaminated. The Court examined counsel’s duty to verify citations and the adjudicator’s non-delegable responsibility.

Arguments supporting relief: The petitioner, appellant, accused or assisting party seeking intervention relied on Judicial accuracy; AI hallucination; professional responsibility; natural justice, the guarantees in Articles 14 and 21, and the language and purpose of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam principles; Advocates Act, 1961. That side argued that legal power is limited by fairness, relevant evidence, reasoned decision-making and proportionality. It asked the Court to examine the actual burden imposed and to grant effective relief rather than leave the alleged violation without a remedy.

Arguments opposing relief: The respondent government, regulator, prosecution, employer or private party relied on statutory competence, institutional autonomy, contractual or procedural rules, public interest, finality, administrative feasibility or the strength of the factual record, according to the nature of POOJA RAMESH SINGH vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. It urged restraint and argued that the challenged outcome fell within lawful discretion or that the requirements for extraordinary Supreme Court intervention were not met.

Judicial comparison: The bench tested these positions against precedent, statutory ingredients, the evidentiary and procedural record, and consequences for similarly situated people or institutions. The controlling questions were: What is the legal effect of a judgment founded on fabricated AI citations, and what duties do lawyers and judges have when using generative AI?

The Court set aside the affected decisions. Reliance on non-existent precedent violates natural justice and makes adjudication unsustainable; advocates must verify every citation and may face professional consequences, while AI cannot replace judicial reasoning or source checking.

Reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court: The Court interpreted Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam principles; Advocates Act, 1961 consistently with Articles 14 and 21 and applied Judicial accuracy; AI hallucination; professional responsibility; natural justice. It examined jurisdiction and legislative or statutory authority, compliance with natural justice, relevance and sufficiency of the material, proportionality of the measure and the practical consequences of the proposed rule. Where appropriate, the Court distinguished merits from procedure, individual relief from general directions, and binding ratio from observations limited to the facts.

Result for the parties: The operative directions in C.A. No. 11950/2025 determine POOJA RAMESH SINGH vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD. The relief granted or refused, and any remand, bail condition, prospective operation, monitoring requirement, time limit, compensation rule or preservation of earlier proceedings, must be understood as part of the final outcome described above.

Broader legal significance: The ruling guides courts, legislatures, governments, investigators, regulators, employers or private parties confronting materially similar issues. Its scope remains subject to the qualifications expressed by the bench; where this summary and the signed decision differ, the official judgment and operative paragraphs are controlling.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam principles; Advocates Act, 1961

Articles 14 and 21

Judicial accuracy; AI hallucination; professional responsibility; natural justice