‘AI Use Karne Ke Liye Bhi Intelligence Chahiye’: CJI Surya Kant Raps Ludhiana Trader for AI-Drafted PIL

New Delhi: Sometimes, what begins with confidence can quickly turn into an awkward moment, especially when you are asked to elaborate on what you have written. That is precisely what happened in the Supreme Court when a Ludhiana-based trader’s public interest litigation (PIL) drew sharp objections from the bench after he disclosed that artificial intelligence tools had helped draft the petition.

AI Generated PIL That Raised Questions in Court   

According to media reports, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a Ludhiana-based cloth trader after he confessed to using artificial intelligence tools to draft the petition and failed to clarify complex legal terms used in it. The exchange took place before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan. 

Rajnish Sidhu, a Ludhiana-based hosiery dealer who claimed to have completed his education up to Class 12, filed his first appeal against the PM CARES Fund directly with the Supreme Court.

According to media reports, the bench became suspicious when Rajnish Sidhu began reading from a written text while presenting his arguments in court. Chief Justice Surya Kant then asked him directly, “You drafted this petition yourself?” Sidhu replied, “Yes, myself. You can check my phone.” The Chief Justice then questioned his claim, saying, “You're only 12th pass? Shall I conduct an English test here in court… score 30 marks and I'll believe you.” Sidhu responded, “Yes, I can try.” The bench then asked him to explain the phrase “fiduciary risk to corporate donors,”which was used in the petition. Sidhu could not explain the term and later admitted, “I used AI tools… paid typist Das sir ₹1000/hour and gave him 4 jackets.”

“Go Sell More Sweaters Instead”: CJI’s Schools Petitioner  

During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned how Sidhu had come directly to the Supreme Court with such a petition.

Responding sarcastically, he said, “Bada bahaduri ka kaam kiya, seedha Ludhiana se chalke aagaye.”

The bench suspected that someone else had prepared the petition. “Mr Sidhu, this has been written and given to you by some advocate. You are just reading the script,” the Chief Justice told him, warning that he could order an investigation by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau.

Sidhu then explained that a typist working on the Supreme Court premises had initially helped him prepare the petition. “The typist was very helpful. I gifted him four jackets. He was asking for Rs 1,000 per hour,” he said.

However, he later admitted that he had used three to four artificial intelligence tools to draft the plea because he could not afford a lawyer. The Chief Justice warned him against filing such cases through others and said, “Jaao, Ludhiana mein 2-3 aur sweater becho… Jin logo ka kaam hai aisi petition file karna, woh nuksaan kardengay apka costs lagwa ke.”

The court dismissed the PIL and warned that such attempts in the future could attract penal and financial consequences.

Court Also Pulled Up Other Frivolous PILs

On Monday, the same bench led by the Chief Justice had also dismissed five “frivolous” PILs filed by a lawyer. One of those petitions even sought a scientific study on whether onion and garlic contained “tamasic” (negative) energy. The bench questioned whether such petitions had been drafted “in the middle of the night.”

Citizens React, From Legal Debate to Social Media Jokes

The incident quickly went viral online, with many people sharing strong reactions. Some pointed out that using AI itself is not wrong, but submitting a document without understanding it is the real problem.

One reaction read, “Drafting a petition with the help of AI is not a crime. The problem arises when the petition, prepared using AI, is submitted without the lawyer reviewing it. If a lawyer relies entirely on AI, then what purpose does the lawyer serve? In that case, one might as well consult a Prompt Engineer instead.”

Another comment stressed the responsibility of lawyers, “Lawyers who submit flawed PILs (Public Interest Litigations) should face consequences, to discourage careless experimentation with AI tools. A lawyer must remember that clients place immense trust and hope in them. By honoring that trust, the lawyer must ensure that all documents are thoroughly reviewed before being submitted to the Court.”

One also said courts should not be used for casual experimentation with technology. “Courts are not laboratories for AI generated experimentation. Public Interest Litigation is meant for genuine constitutional issues, not casually drafted petitions copied from AI tools and filed without understanding the language or implications.”

At the same time, many social media users reacted with humour. Some wrote, “Bro brought ChatGPT to the Supreme Court and got exposed.”

Another joked, “This is what happens when you blindly copy the project from your friend and can't answer in viva questions.”

One more viral comment said, “AI use karne ke liye bhi intelligence chahiye.”

Many also felt the petitioner should have at least understood the petition before filing it. “Petitioner should have atleast gone though PIL and understood what AI has written.”

For now, the incident has turned into a widely discussed example of how technology, law, and basic preparation can collide in unexpected ways, even inside the country’s highest court.