India’s legal profession is facing a growing crisis of authenticity, with concerns emerging over both unqualified practitioners and the unchecked use of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings. Recent developments involving the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court have highlighted how these twin challenges could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The BCI’s nationwide verification exercise has revealed that a significant number of individuals practising law may possess fake or unverifiable law degrees. According to the council, nearly 35–40% of practitioners in court complexes across the country are under scrutiny, with thousands failing to provide the necessary documents to validate their qualifications. The findings have intensified concerns about how individuals may have entered the profession without undergoing the rigorous legal education and scrutiny required of officers of the court.
The issue gained further attention after remarks made by the Chief Justice of India regarding bogus practitioners. Although the comments later required clarification, they reflected growing frustration over the presence of individuals allegedly practising law through fraudulent means. Legal experts argue that professional accreditation is central to the legitimacy of the justice system, and any erosion of trust in lawyers’ qualifications directly impacts public faith in judicial institutions.
At the same time, courts are grappling with another challenge: the increasing use of artificial intelligence tools that can generate convincing but inaccurate legal content. Several courts have expressed concern over AI “hallucinations,” where systems create fictional case citations and legal precedents that appear genuine. In one notable instance, an Andhra Pradesh court reportedly relied on non-existent judgments generated through AI-assisted research, raising serious questions about the reliability of such technologies in legal proceedings.
Experts warn that the problems of fake credentials and AI-generated misinformation are closely connected. While one involves fabricated professional qualifications, the other involves fabricated legal reasoning. Together, they threaten the credibility of legal institutions by weakening the safeguards that traditionally ensure competence and accountability within the profession.
To address these concerns, the Supreme Court’s Draft AI Regulations 2026 propose strict safeguards on the use of artificial intelligence within the judiciary. The framework prohibits algorithmic decision-making and black-box systems while requiring transparency and disclosure whenever AI tools are used. The regulations are based on the principle that technology should assist judges and lawyers rather than replace human judgment.
However, legal scholars argue that regulating AI alone will not solve the deeper crisis. They call for stronger verification of lawyers’ credentials, reforms in legal education, improved professional oversight, and clear rules governing the use of AI-generated content in courtrooms. The objective, they say, is to ensure that technology enhances verified human expertise rather than substitutes it.
Questions have also been raised about the legal status of the proposed AI framework. Since the guidelines are currently drafted as regulations rather than rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution, some experts believe they may lack the enforceability necessary to ensure compliance. Without stronger legal backing, mandatory disclosure requirements and safeguards against AI misuse could remain difficult to implement effectively.
Observers stress that the legal profession stands at a critical crossroads. If fraudulent qualifications continue to go unchecked and AI-generated content is adopted without adequate safeguards, the justice system risks becoming increasingly detached from the informed human judgment on which it fundamentally relies. Strengthening professional authenticity and ensuring responsible use of technology, they argue, are essential to preserving public trust in the administration of justice.
