The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a Ludhiana-based cloth trader after he admitted that he had used artificial intelligence tools to draft the petition and was unable to explain the complex legal terminology used in it.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan, on Tuesday grew suspicious when the petitioner, Rajnish Sidhu, stood up to argue his plea related to the PM CARES Fund.
What happened in the Court?
Sidhu, a hosiery trader with a Class 12 education, began reading from a prepared written submission. His arguments prompted the Chief Justice to question him about his educational background and other details, raising doubts about whether he had drafted the petition himself.
When the petitioner said that he did not file any petition in the past and directly came to the top court to file his first plea, the CJI sarcastically said, "'Bada bahaduri ka kaam kiya, seedha Ludhiana se chalke aagaye' (Very brave of you to come straight from Ludhiana to the Supreme Court)."
CJI: Have you drafted the plea?
Petitioner: Yes, myself. I can deposit my phone here.
CJI: What is your background?
Petitioner: 12th pass
CJI: Which school?
Petitioner: Sanatan Dharm School, Ludhiana
CJI: I will arrange an English exam here in court..if you score 30 marks.. I will see it then
Petitioner: Yes, yes, I can
CJI: Either you tell the truth, or we impose huge costs and order a probe
Petitioner: You can see my phone.
How did the Court find out?
The moment of truth came when the CJI asked Sidhu to explain "Fiduciary Risk of Corporate Donors", a term used in the PIL. A stumped Sidhu was unable to define the term and tried to read from his notes.
CJI: What does fiduciary risk to corporate donors, etc., that you have written.. What does it mean?
Adv: I can refer to the plea.
CJI: I am asking the last time which lawyer drafted it. You have not done it.
The petitioner then took the name of a typist working on the apex court premises as the person who initially helped him draft the PIL.
Eventually, he admitted to using three to four artificial intelligence (AI) tools to draft the petition because he could not afford a lawyer. The bench trashed the PIL with the warning that any such attempt in the future will invite penal and financial consequences.
Adv: I have searched AI Tools. I also gifted 4 jackets to a typist, and he charged 1000 per hour for typing.. Das sir.
CJI: Supreme Court typist made the petition. Call the typist here.
CJI: Looks like the petitioner has lent his shoulders to someone who has drafted a vague, wild petition. The tone, tenor, and so-called constitutional principle sought to be raised cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner, who is a small-time trader. We, however, do not order a roving inquiry for such frivolous pleas with a stern warning not to file such petitions in the near future.
CJI: Jaao, Ludhiana mein 2-3 aur sweater becho… Jin logo ka kaam hai aisi petition file karna, woh nuksaan kardengay apka costs lagwa ke' (Go and sell 2-3 more sweaters in Ludhiana. If you continue filing such petitions through others, they will end up having costs imposed upon you).
Also Read: WATCH: UAE President, Dubai Crown Prince visit mall amid regional conflict, people impressed
Also Read: Tried typing ‘Punch The Monkey’ on Google? Get ready for a surprisingly sweet surprise
