In a notable judicial observation, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the increasing use of AI-generated or computer-generated statements in court pleadings, warning that such submissions risk disorienting the core issues in litigation. The remarks were made in the judgment delivered in Annaya Kocha Shetty (Dead) Through LRs vs Laxmibai Narayan Satose (Dead) Through LRs & Others [Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2019], decided on April 8, 2025.
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti, criticized the trend of meandering and verbose pleadings, noting that excessively long submissions unnecessarily burden the judiciary at every level—from trial to special leave petition.
In a direct reference to the emerging trend of machine-generated content in legal proceedings, the Court observed:
“Courts are also confronted with AI-generated or computer-generated statements. While technology is useful in enhancing efficiency and efficacy, the placid pleadings will disorient the cause in a case.”
Calling for a fundamental shift in the approach to pleadings, the Court emphasized the importance of clarity and brevity:
“It is time that the approach to pleadings is re-invented and re-introduced to be brief and precise.”
The Bench observed that lengthy pleadings have a “cascading effect” on appellate and revisional courts and could render the narrative “difficult” at the SLP stage. Citing Abraham Lincoln and Shakespeare to illustrate the problem, the Court remarked:
“We are reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s ode to a lawyer friend – ‘He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met.’ Such lengthy pleadings would even upset Polonius from Shakespeare’s Hamlet.”
The judgment cautioned that unnecessary verbosity must be checked by trial courts through Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers courts to strike out irrelevant, scandalous, or vexatious matter from pleadings.
“The effort of pleading and evidence should be concise to the cause and must not confuse the cause… The time has come for courts to invoke the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 16 and make litigation workable.”
The observations were made while dismissing an appeal concerning tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act. The appellant had claimed protection under Section 15A of the Act, arguing he was a deemed tenant of a shop premises where he had been running a hotel business since 1967. The trial court had ruled in his favour, but the appellate court and High Court both reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff was merely a conductor of the business under a “conducting agreement” and not a tenant.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate findings, holding that the agreement between the parties was clearly for conducting the business and did not confer any tenancy rights:
“We have no hesitation in holding that the agreement is one for conducting the business of the first defendant. We are excluding oral evidence from consideration as none of the exceptions [under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act] is attracted.”
The Court further imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the appellant, payable to the first defendant.
