Delhi Court Fines Litigant ₹20,000 For AI Drafted Petition

April 1, 2026 03:56 PM IST | Written by Neelam Sharma | Edited by Vaibhav Jha

A Delhi court in India has fined a litigant ₹20,000 (roughly $USD 215) for wasting court’s time, after finding that her complaint was incognizable and poorly drafted– possibly with “technical intervention”.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of the Rose Avenue Court in New Delhi, put a fine of ₹20,000 on the litigant Punam Pandey for submitting an application with incoherent language and grammatical errors, that failed to make any sense.

The litigant had urged the court to ask Delhi Police to file a first information report (FIR) against another party, claiming threat to her life and alleged corruption by police. The judge dismissed her petition on grounds that the case was already being investigated in the initial FIR.

While disposing off the application, ACJM Mitta claimed she suspected use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in drafting the application and highlighted the incoherent portion in her judgement order.

“that is why the me could not take legal action against the OCT accused because the me is Lady. a LATTES simple Framner……….The mean Lebaut was in depression………..The complaint EO SHO PS Mehrauli, New Delhi 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. Such practices have recently been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Despite nipping such complaints in the bud, litigants filing these frivolous complaints are definitely successful in wasting judicial time, if not more. In such situations, Courts cannot be left powerless. Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to impose cost upon the complainant,” read an excerpt from the order.

The latest fine by the Delhi Court follows a number of similar penal actions taken by judges against advocates using AI while drafting petitions in courts of India, Singapore, U.S. and other countries. Recently, judges in India have also advised attorneys of the potential use of AI in developing fabricated claims or factual information if proper court verification of the information is not conducted prior to its submission.

Also Read: “Do Not Become An Artificial Lawyer”: Judges Come Down Hard on AI in Courts

Authors

Neelam Sharma

Neelam Sharma is a passionate storyteller, and journalist with over a decade of experience across leading Indian media houses.
Known for her calm presence on screen and powerful storytelling off it, Neelam brings a rare blend of credibility, creativity, and empathy to journalism. Her strength lies in ground reporting and research-driven narratives that connect with the heart of the audience. Whether covering social issues, human-interest features, or breaking news, she combines factual depth with a human touch—making every story not just informative.

Vaibhav Jha

Vaibhav Jha is an Editor and Co-founder of AI FrontPage. In his decade long career in journalism, Vaibhav has reported for publications including The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and The New York Times, covering the intersection of technology, policy, and society. Outside work, he’s usually trying to persuade people to watch Anurag Kashyap films.