The Bombay High Court recently pulled up a litigant for filing unverified written submissions using AI tool, including references to non-existent case law.
Justice MM Sathaye observed that the litigant had dumped documents on the court without verifying its contents.
“This practice of dumping documents/submissions on the Court and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud,” the court held as it imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the respondent.
The court was hearing a plea filed by a film director and producer challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which had earlier quashed an eviction order passed under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The high court set aside the impugned ruling and confirmed the eviction order.
From the overall tenor of the written submissions and some features, such as green-box tick-marks, bulletpoint-marks, repetitive submissions, the court found that the submissions were prepared using an AI tool such as Chat GPT or alike.
While welcoming the use of AI tools in research, the court remarked that there is great responsibility on the party or advocate using such tools to cross verify the references.
“If an AI tool is used in aid of research, it is welcome; however, there is great responsibility upon the party, even an advocate using such tools, to cross verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the machine/computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence,” the order read.
Story continues below this ad
The court warned that if an advocate is found to be indulging in such practice, then it would be referred to the Bar Council.
Case
- Petitioner is a licensor and respondent is a licensee in respect of suit flat.
- The petitioner is the owner of the suit flat. The respondent is an incorporated company represented by its director.
- The petitioner filed an application contending that the respondent was inducted as licensee in the suit flat under registered leave and license agreement for a period of 22 months.
- It was alleged that the respondent committed breach of the terms and conditions which led to termination of the agreement.
- The competent authority (Rent Act) allowed the plea, thereby directing the respondent to handover possession of the suit flat to the petitioner.
- In a revision plea, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai allowed the revision, and set aside the eviction order.
Findings
- The Revisional Authority considered clause 13 of the film production contract which speaks about Respondent’s entitlement to recover the amount and having charge/lien over the estate of the Petitioner.
- The consideration of any other document such as film production contract and the alleged liability arising thereunder, was clearly beyond the scope of Revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 44 of the MRC Act.
- The consideration of liability arising out of the film production contract was beyond the scope of Section 44 of the MRC Act.
- The contentions of the respondent in the written statement are not supported by any witness by entering the witness box. Therefore it’s clear that the leave and license was granted for the purpose of residential use only.
- Precious judicial time of this court has been taken, not once but thrice. For such conduct, the respondent must be saddled with costs.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
