Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India, 2 September 2026)
Case note. 2026 INSC 947. A customs adjudicating officer imposed a penalty of Rs.425,27,99,100 by an order relying on judgments and articles that the Supreme Court, verifying them itself, found non-existent, falsely cited, or existing but not holding what was attributed to them. The Court applied the zero-tolerance standard of Pooja Ramesh Singh to executive adjudication, set aside the order and the High Court's confirmation, remanded to a different officer, and left disciplinary action against the author of the order to the appointing authority.
The proceeding
Civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.15605 of 2026, leave granted and decided on 2 September 2026 by Datta and Nagu JJ, reportable. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, by Order-in-Original dated 8 October 2025, imposed a penalty of Rs.425,27,99,100 on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for mis-declaring natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appellant's challenge on 20 January 2026 (paragraph 2).
What the Court found
The Court did not enter the merits, because it was contended that several judgments and articles cited in the Order-in-Original were generated using artificial intelligence (paragraph 3). "We have made the effort to individually verify whether such contention of the appellant is true. Upon verifying such judgments and articles, it does appear that the second respondent has relied upon case laws that are either non-existent or have fake citations. A further investigation has also revealed that some of the case laws relied upon by the second respondent, which do exist, do not lay down the ratio deduced therefrom and it appears to be a hallucination of AI" (paragraph 4).
The Court then set out paragraph 7 of Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, 2026 INSC 668, in full, describing it as "a precedent dealing with the use of AI in judgments" (paragraph 5).
On AI in adjudication generally (paragraph 6): the Court noted its own draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026, "yet to be finalised", and said that "use of AI as an assistive tool to speed up the decision-making process cannot be denied. However, a note of caution must be sounded: assistance can never be substituted for adjudication. AI may well serve as training wheels but entrusting it with the pilot's seat would be both imprudent and dangerous."
What the Court ordered
The reliance on dubious material "proves fatal to the sustainability of the order imposing penalty" (paragraph 7). The High Court's order and the Order-in-Original were set aside, and the proceedings revived "for being decided afresh by an officer of the same rank other than the one who passed the order dated 8th October, 2025" (paragraph 8). The Additional Solicitor General did not join issue. Paragraph 11: "We leave it to the wisdom of the appointing authority to initiate such action against the author of the order dated 8th October, 2025, as may be warranted in the circumstances, in accordance with law."
Why it matters
Three things. The standard declared for courts in Pooja Ramesh Singh was applied to an executive adjudicating officer, so the rule now runs across the adjudicatory process and not only the judicial branch. The Court verified the citations itself, which is the verification the officer omitted, and found the fourth form of fabrication: existing cases that do not hold what was attributed to them, the form an existence check cannot catch. And the consequence was directed at the office-holder by office: a different officer decides afresh, and action against the author is left to the authority that appointed him. The tool is nowhere in the order.
Note on citation
This order cites Pooja Ramesh Singh as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1258; the library uses the neutral citation 2026 INSC 668 throughout.
Provenance and method.
Where this was published
- Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India & Anr
- 2026 INSC 947
- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.15605 of 2026
- Supreme Court of India
- order dated 2 September 2026 (Datta and Nagu JJ)
- reportable (archived copy
- digitally signed 2 September 2026
- read 25 September 2026)
Changelog
- 2026-09-25, version 1. First published.