‘Technical intervention, less human mind’: Delhi court flags ‘AI-drafted’ petition, fines litigant Rs 20,000
The petitioner had approached court seeking an FIR against a man who, she alleged, threatened to kill her and her family. The court, however, dismissed it for being ‘non-maintainable’
Taking stern note of a petition that appeared to be drafted using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, a Delhi court has imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner.
The petitioner, Punam Pandey, had approached the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue Court via a 156(3) CrPC application, through which a Magistrate can order the registration of an FIR.
As per the order, she sought an FIR against a man named Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, accusing him of allegedly extending death threats to her and her family.
The order noted that Paragraph 3 of the application, however, read: “that is why the me could not take legal action against the OCT accused because the me is Lady. a LATTES simple Framner………. The mean Lebaut was in depression……….. The complaint EO SHO PS Mehrauli, New Delhi BHE BE Action was taken till me”.
While rejecting the application, the court pulled up Pandey’s lawyer for AI usage or “technical intervention”. “These lines certainly do not make any sense and fail to convey anything else except the fact that drafting might have been done with more technical intervention and less of human mind contribution,” ACJM Mittal said in her order dated March 30.
“… this Court deems it appropriate to highlight the quality of the drafting that has been dumped before this Court. It is not only the grammatical mistakes but also insertion of some random meaningless words that has led to wastage of judicial time as efforts were made to try to make sense out of these words but not of much avail,” the Judge added.
As per the order, Pandey claimed she had reached out to the police in 2018 and called the ‘100’ emergency line, but to no avail. She had also alleged that the SHO and Investigating Officer (IO) had not investigated the case properly as they had allegedly accepted a Rs 50 lakh bribe from Hussain.
Story continues below this ad
While dismissing Pandey’s plea, the court said the complaint was sent to both the SHO and the DCP on the same date. “… this is not a proper compliance of Section 173(4) BNSS as no reasonable time was given to the SHO to take any action on the complaint of the complainant,” the court said.
It also said that the mere allegation that the accused threatened to kill the complainant is insufficient to attract Section 308 BNS (extortion, which is a cognizable offence).
“… the present application… is dismissed being non-maintainable for want of compliance… for failure to disclose commission of cognizable offence and for being beyond jurisdiction of this Court,” the court said.
ACJM Mittal, while imposing the cost, also said the fact that such practices of using AI while drafting petitions or complaints had been flagged by higher courts.
Story continues below this ad
“Such practices have recently been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Despite nipping such complaints in the bud, litigants filing these frivolous complaints are definitely successful in wasting judicial time, if not more. In such situations, Courts cannot be left powerless. Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to impose cost upon the complainant,” the court said.
On February 17, the SC expressed grave concerns over the growing reliance on AI in drafting legal petitions. A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi said the “alarming” trend had resulted in the citing of non-existent or fictitious case laws in petitions. The Bench had also stated that the use of AI for legal drafting was “absolutely uncalled for”. Justice Nagarathna had even recalled how a lawyer arguing before her Bench had recently cited a non-existent case law titled ‘Mercy vs Mankind’.
On March 26, the SC had expressed concern over the growing “menace” of lawyers and litigants citing non-existent judgments generated by AI, warning that the practice is becoming increasingly common across courts.
Nirbhay Thakur is a Senior Correspondent with The Indian Express who primarily covers district courts in Delhi and has reported on the trials of many high-profile cases since 2023.
Professional Background
Education: Nirbhay is an economics graduate from Delhi University.
Beats: His reporting spans the trial courts, and he occasionally interviews ambassadors and has a keen interest in doing data stories.
Specializations: He has a specific interest in data stories related to courts.
Core Strength: Nirbhay is known for tracking long-running legal sagas and providing meticulous updates on high-profile criminal trials.
Recent notable articles
In 2025, he has written long form articles and two investigations. Along with breaking many court stories, he has also done various exclusive stories.
1) A long form on Surender Koli, accused in the Nithari serial killings of 2006. He was acquitted after spending 2 decades in jail. was a branded man. Deemed the “cannibal" who allegedly lured children to his employer’s house in Noida, murdered them, and “ate their flesh” – his actions cited were cited as evidence of human depravity at its worst. However, the SC acquitted him finding various lapses in the investigation. The Indian Express spoke to his lawyers and traced the 2 decades journey.
2) For decades, the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has been at the forefront of the Government’s national rankings, placed at No. 2 over the past two years alone. It has also been the crucible of campus activism, its protests often spilling into national debates, its student leaders going on to become the faces and voices of political parties of all hues and thoughts. The Indian Express looked at all court cases spanning over two decades and did an investigation.
3) Investigation on the 700 Delhi riots cases. The Indian Express found that in 17 of 93 acquittals (which amounted to 85% of the decided cases) in Delhi riots cases, courts red-flag ‘fabricated’ evidence and pulled up the police.
Signature Style
Nirbhay’s writing is characterized by its procedural depth. He excels at summarizing 400-page chargesheets and complex court orders into digestible news for the general public.
X (Twitter): @Nirbhaya99 ... Read More
