The Karnataka High Court (HC) has disposed a writ petition filed by Buckeye Trust after the income tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) president reassigned its case to a different bench, following concerns that an earlier tribunal order appeared to have been generated using artificial intelligence (AI). The development comes amid growing debate over the use of AI in judicial and quasi-judicial processes.
In an order last month, the bench of justice M Nagaprasanna noted that once the ITAT president had transferred the matter to another bench, the writ petition filed to defer proceedings had become infructuous. The Court, however, granted liberty to Buckeye Trust to seek remedies before appropriate forums should an adverse order be passed in the future.
The unusual case arose when Buckeye Trust, registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, approached the HC seeking a direction to defer the ITAT proceedings until its transfer application pending before the president of ITAT, Mumbai, was decided. The Ttrust expressed apprehension that bias might affect the fairness of the hearing, as the same judicial member who had earlier authored a now-recalled order intended to preside over the case again.
In a striking observation during an earlier hearing on 19 August 2025, justice Nagaprasanna recorded that the previous ITAT order 'prima facie indicates that it is artificial intelligence driven'. The Court noted that this impression was reinforced by the tribunal’s own subsequent decision to recall that order. According to the HC, “certain members had recused themselves as they were part of the order that was passed, which is allegedly Artificial Intelligence driven.”
The bench described the circumstances as 'very strange', observing that the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing might be compromised if the same member who had issued the recalled order continued to adjudicate the case. Citing the principle that “justice must not only be done but seem to have been done,” the Court temporarily stayed further proceedings before that particular judicial member, allowing the ITAT president to consider Buckeye Trust’s request for transfer.
Following this intervention, the president of the ITAT reassigned the matter to another bench, effectively addressing Buckeye Trust’s concerns. Consequently, the HC concluded that the writ petition no longer survived for adjudication. “In the light of the said submission, reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed as having become infructuous,” justice Nagaprasanna says in his order.
The controversy surrounding the case has drawn attention not only because of the alleged use of AI in drafting or influencing a judicial order but also due to the questions it raises about procedural integrity and accountability in the Indian tax adjudication system. The ITAT’s recall of its own order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act underscores the seriousness with which the tribunal viewed the irregularity.
The recalled order in question, passed on 30 December 2024, was reportedly withdrawn by the ITAT on 7 January 2025, citing procedural irregularities. The recall came amid widespread speculation that the decision had been prepared or heavily influenced by an automated text-generation system rather than human deliberation.
The incident could mark the first judicial reference in India to an 'AI-driven' tribunal order. While AI-assisted tools are increasingly being used for research and drafting support in courts and tribunals worldwide, the use of such tools to generate final orders without human oversight raises ethical and legal concerns.
For Buckeye Trust, the issue was less about the technology and more about perceived bias. It contended that after the recall, the same judicial member who had authored the controversial order should not preside over the rehearing. The HC accepted this apprehension as genuine and ensured that the matter would be heard afresh by a different bench.
With the reassignment, the case returns to the ITAT for a de novo hearing before a new bench, marking the end of the HC proceedings. However, the episode is likely to leave a lasting mark on how judicial bodies in India approach the intersection of technology and adjudication.
(Writ Petition No25280 of 2025 (T-IT) Date: 18 September 2025)
