“Jaao Ludhiana mein sweaters becho”: CJI dismisses PIL after Petitioner admits using AI, fails to explain Legal Terms

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Ludhiana based trader after he admitted during the hearing that the petition had been prepared using artificial intelligence tools and he could not explain key legal expressions used in it. The bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant refused to entertain the challenge concerning the PM CARES Fund, signalling the court’s concern over petitions filed without genuine legal understanding and the emerging misuse of technology in litigation.

The case was heard by a three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R. Mahadevan. Suspicion arose when the petitioner, Rajnish Sidhu, a hosiery trader from Ludhiana with a Class 12 qualification, began arguing the matter while reading from a prepared script. When questioned about his background and prior litigation experience, he acknowledged that this was his first petition filed directly before the Apex Court.

The situation escalated when the bench asked him to explain the phrase “Fiduciary Risk of Corporate Donors” used in the petition, but he was unable to clarify its meaning and instead attempted to read from his notes. He eventually admitted that the pleading had been generated with the help of several AI tools as he could not afford legal representation.

Observing that the petitioner had little understanding of the legal claims advanced in the petition, the bench indicated that the document appeared to have been prepared by someone else. During the exchange, the Chief Justice remarked, “Mr Sidhu, this has been written and given to you by some advocate. You are just reading the script.” The court also expressed displeasure at the filing of such pleadings and cautioned the petitioner, stating, “Jaao, Ludhiana mein 2-3 aur sweaters becho… Jin logo ka kaam hai aisi petition file karna, woh nuksaan kardengay apka costs lagwa ke.”

Concluding that the petition lacked credibility, the Court dismissed the PIL.