'Go sell sweaters': SC pulls up petitioner after he admits using AI, typist to file dubious PIL

In a lighter remark, the CJI also advised the petitioner to focus on his business instead of filing PILs.

• Supreme Court doubts authenticity of PIL drafted by petitioner
• Petitioner admits using AI tools and typist for drafting petition
• Court rejects plea, warns petitioner against frivolous PILs

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, pulled up a petitioner appearing in person after suspecting that the public interest litigation (PIL) filed before it had not been drafted by him. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant raised doubts about the authenticity of the plea and warned the petitioner of possible consequences if he failed to disclose who had actually prepared the petition.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice first asked the petitioner whether he had drafted the petition himself. "Have you drafted the plea?" the Chief Justice asked.

The petitioner responded that he had prepared it himself and even offered to deposit his phone with the court.

The bench then questioned him about his educational background. When asked about his qualifications, the petitioner said he had studied up to Class 12 and attended a school in Ludhiana.

“Which school?” the Chief Justice asked.

To which, the petitioner replied, "Sanatan Dharm School, Ludhiana".

Following this, the CJI suggested that the court could test his claim. "I will arrange an English exam here in court. If you score 30 marks, I will see it then," he noted.

The petitioner maintained that he had prepared the petition and again offered to hand over his phone to the court.

The bench, however, pointed out that several technical legal terms used in the petition raised doubts about his claim.

"What does 'fiduciary risk to corporate donors' mean?," asked CJI Surya Kant, referring to a phrase used in the plea.

When the petitioner struggled to explain the wording, the court asked him again whether any lawyer had helped prepare the petition.

"I am asking for the last time which lawyer drafted it. You have not done it," the Chief Justice said.

The petitioner eventually admitted he had searched for information using AI tools and that a typist at the Supreme Court had helped type the petition.

According to him, the typist charged Rs 1,000 per hour for the work. He also claimed he had gifted four jackets to the typist.

Hearing this, the bench directed that the typist be called to court.

Observing that the petition appeared to have been drafted by someone else, the Chief Justice said the court believed the petitioner had merely lent his name to a vague and poorly framed plea.

"It looks like the petitioner has lent his shoulders to someone who has drafted a vague, wild petition," the Chief Justice remarked.

He further said the tone and constitutional arguments raised in the petition could not reasonably have originated from the petitioner.

"The tone, tenor and the so-called constitutional principles raised cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner, who is a small-time trader," the bench observed.

While refraining from ordering a detailed probe into the matter, the court dismissed the plea and issued a stern warning.

"We are not ordering a roving inquiry for such a frivolous plea, but we warn you not to file such petitions in the near future," the Chief Justice said.

In a lighter remark, he also advised the petitioner to focus on his business instead of filing PILs. "Go back and sell some more sweaters. If you keep filing such PILs, you may end up paying costs," the Chief Justice said.