Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Pooja Ramesh Singh on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank

Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
India
Decided
2026-05-05
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Ongoing
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified. || Fabricated: Case Law | NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.

Details

The NCLT Mumbai Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments in its order admitting Essel Infraprojects to CIRP. The suspended director's counsel alleged that, except for two, the cited judgments and extracted portions could not be verified and were 'hallucinated' (non-existent). The Supreme Court treated this as an integrity issue and directed an affidavit listing the disputed citations.

Sanction teardown · Supreme Court, India · 2026-05-05

Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank

What happened

In Supreme Court, India, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    NCLT cited this Supreme Court judgment; petitioner alleges the citation/name and extracted portions are not genuine and could not be verified.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Ongoing

Additional detail

The NCLT Mumbai Bench cited several Supreme Court judgments in its order admitting Essel Infraprojects to CIRP. The suspended director's counsel alleged that, except for two, the cited judgments and extracted portions could not be verified and were 'hallucinated' (non-existent). The Supreme Court treated this as an integrity issue and directed an affidavit listing the disputed citations.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template