Delhi Court Imposes ₹20,000 Cost Over ‘AI-Drafted’ Plea Filled With Errors

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order on March 30 while dismissing an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which empowers a magistrate to direct police to register an FIR.

The complainant, Punam Pandey, had approached the court seeking action against one Syed Shahnawaz Hussain, alleging that he had issued death threats to her and her family. She further claimed that despite reaching out to the police in 2018 and contacting the emergency helpline, no effective action was taken. The complaint also accused police officials of failing to investigate the matter properly, alleging that they had accepted a bribe of ₹50 lakh from the accused.

However, the court found the application fundamentally flawed; both in substance and form.

In a strongly worded order, the magistrate remarked that the petition appeared to be an example of “technical intervention” with minimal application of the human mind. Highlighting the poor drafting, the court reproduced portions of the complaint to underscore its incoherence: “that is why the me could not take legal action against the OCT accused because the me is Lady… The mean Lebaut was in depression… The complaint EO SHO PS Mehrauli… BHE BE Action was taken till me.”

“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,” the court observed.

The judge further noted that the application contained numerous grammatical mistakes and random, meaningless insertions, which led to a waste of judicial time as the court attempted, unsuccessfully- to decipher the contents. “This court deems it appropriate to highlight the quality of the drafting that has been dumped before it,” the order stated.

Apart from the defective drafting, the court also found the complaint legally untenable. It noted that the complainant had simultaneously sent her grievance to the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) on the same date, without giving reasonable time for action, thereby failing to comply with procedural requirements under Section 173(4) of the BNSS.

Further, the court held that the allegations did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It observed that a mere claim of threats was insufficient to invoke provisions such as Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Consequently, the application was dismissed as “non-maintainable,” lacking jurisdiction and failing to meet legal thresholds.

Taking a broader view, the magistrate also flagged the increasing misuse of AI tools in legal drafting, echoing concerns previously raised by constitutional courts. The order noted that despite repeated judicial warnings, litigants continue to file frivolous and poorly drafted petitions, contributing to unnecessary delays and burdening the justice system.

“Such practices have recently been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Despite nipping such complaints in the bud, litigants… are definitely successful in wasting judicial time,” the court said.

To “meet the ends of justice” and deter such conduct, the court directed the complainant to deposit ₹20,000 with the Delhi Legal Services Authority.

Notably, in a related news, CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court had raised concerns over growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting of petitions, relying on recent instances where lawyers cited judgments and quotations that either were found to be non-existent. “We have been alarmingly told that some lawyers have started using AI for drafting,” CJI Kant noted during a hearing.

Justice Nagarathna, also on the bench, recalled an instance where a fictitious judgment was cited and said, "There was a case of Mercy vs Mankind which does not exist". The judge further observed how actual supreme court judgment were cited but the quoted portions did not exist in the judgment.