The Andhra Pradesh High Court has cautioned legal practitioners against relying on artificial intelligence (AI) without verifying its output, after finding discrepancies in an affidavit filed before it. The Court concluded that the document appeared to be AI-generated and emphasised that advocates remain responsible for the accuracy of facts and legal authorities presented in judicial proceedings.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti, in an order dated October 27, observed that AI could support legal research and drafting but could not replace the professional judgement and responsibilities of an advocate or adjudicator.
The Court stressed that using AI-generated material offered no justification for presenting fabricated content. It also reminded advocates of their obligations towards both their clients and the courts.
Court Flags AI-Generated Affidavit
The observations came during the hearing of a writ petition in which the Court noticed discrepancies in an accompanying affidavit.
After examining the drafting, Justice Satti concluded that the affidavit was a product of artificial intelligence and urged legal professionals to exercise greater caution when using such technology.
The Court observed that advocates must independently verify the information they submit, regardless of whether AI has assisted in preparing the material.
It further remarked that an advocate who had personally undertaken the effort of drafting such an affidavit would deserve appreciation for discharging a professional duty.
Dispute Arising From Decades-Old Civil Suit
The proceedings originated from a civil dispute involving an agreement of sale.
According to the Court’s order, a person had instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking specific performance of the agreement. On December 4, 1989, the trial court delivered a judgement in favour of that person.
Following the judgement, the sale deed was executed in the successful litigant’s favour and registered as a document by the trial court on April 27, 2005.
The writ petition was subsequently brought by the petitioner’s general power of attorney holder.
In the affidavit accompanying the petition, it was claimed that the execution proceedings had been scrapped because the property described in the trial court’s judgement did not exist, could not be identified and did not correspond with official records.
Petitioner Sought FIR And Intervention In Civil Proceedings
Through the writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to the authorities to investigate a complaint dated January 5, 2023, and register a First Information Report.
The petitioner also requested the High Court to obtain records of the civil proceedings from the trial court at Kakinada and set aside the implementation of the court’s order.
However, the High Court found that the writ jurisdiction was not the appropriate remedy for the grievances raised.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Satti observed that the petitioner’s advocate should have advised the client to pursue the appropriate legal remedies before the competent forum.
The Court’s observations on artificial intelligence accompanied its decision to reject the writ petition, with a reminder that technology-assisted drafting does not diminish an advocate’s duty to ensure the accuracy and reliability of documents placed before a court.
