When AI is used to fake evidence, it doesn’t just break marriages — it breaks justice.” — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has issued a stark warning about the growing misuse of artificial intelligence to fabricate evidence in matrimonial disputes, observing that parties are increasingly weaponising technology to create false allegations and “teach the other side a lesson.” The judgment underscores how such conduct not only corrodes the institution of marriage but also threatens the fairness, integrity, and credibility of judicial proceedings.

Factual matrix and procedural posture

The case arose from a deeply acrimonious matrimonial relationship that lasted only about 65 days but spiralled into more than 13 years of litigation, with the parties filing over 40 cases across multiple forums, including criminal complaints, maintenance petitions, and civil suits. The Supreme Court was seized of the matter in its criminal original jurisdiction (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 338 of 2025), primarily to examine the conduct of the parties and the propriety of continued criminalisation of their broken relationship.

The Bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, ultimately exercised its extra‑ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, while allowing perjury proceedings against one party to continue. The Court also imposed costs of ₹10,000 each on both spouses for indulging in protracted, score‑settling litigation.

Court’s observations on AI‑fabricated and false evidence

The Supreme Court flagged a “disturbing trend” where parties in matrimonial disputes are creating or embellishing evidence using AI tools, including manipulated audio‑visual material, forged documents, and fabricated digital communications. The Bench noted that, in the era of artificial intelligence, evidence is often not merely collected but actively “created” to bolster false narratives, such as exaggerated claims of cruelty, dowry harassment, or domestic violence.

The Court observed that “whenever the parties in matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach a lesson to the other side”, with litigation becoming a tool of vengeance rather than a forum for justice. It stressed that such practices undermine the rule of law, erode public confidence in the judiciary, and divert scarce judicial resources from genuine disputes to manufactured ones.

Impact on judicial process and matrimonial justice

The judgment highlights three major systemic concerns arising from the misuse of AI‑generated and fabricated evidence:

• Erosion of evidentiary reliability: Courts increasingly face difficulty in distinguishing genuine digital evidence from AI‑manipulated content, raising questions about the integrity of proof in matrimonial cases.
• Prolonged and vindictive litigation: Instead of attempting reconciliation, parties rush to police stations and courts over minor disagreements, turning family disputes into endless legal warfare.
• Over‑criminalisation of marital discord: The Court criticised the tendency to invoke criminal law (such as Sections under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for essentially civil‑cum‑domestic issues, which deepens bitterness and harms children and extended families.

The Bench warned that courts cannot be allowed to become “battlefields” where broken relationships are converted into instruments of punishment, and urged a shift towards mediation, counselling, and non‑adversarial dispute resolution in early stages of matrimonial discord.

Remedial signals and future implications

While Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar is primarily a case‑specific exercise of Article 142 powers, the Court’s observations carry broader doctrinal and policy significance:

• Judicial vigilance on digital evidence: The judgment implicitly calls for greater scrutiny of AI‑generated content, including the use of forensic tools, expert testimony, and cross‑examination to test authenticity.
• Discouraging perjury and abuse of process: By permitting perjury proceedings and imposing costs, the Court signals that false allegations and fabricated evidence will not be insulated from consequences.
• Preference for mediation over criminalisation: The Bench repeatedly emphasised that mediation and reconciliation should be the first resort, reserving criminal proceedings for genuine, serious offences rather than matrimonial score‑settling.

In sum, Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar is not merely a divorce case; it is a landmark judicial signal that the Supreme Court will not tolerate the weaponisation of AI and technology to manufacture false narratives in matrimonial disputes, and will insist that the courtroom remain a forum for truth and justice, not digital deception and vendetta.