The judge noted that the plaintiff failed to verify the contents of the documents and emphasized that a practice in which the court is forced to review nonexistent or irrelevant materials “must be condemned and stopped at the outset.” The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs of 50,000 rupees (approximately $551).

The court determined that the filings had been prepared using AI tools such as ChatGPT. This conclusion was based on the overall structure of the documents, including green checkmarks in fields, bullet-pointed lists, and repetitive statements, according to the ruling. The court stressed that while the use of AI for research is welcome, both the plaintiff and their lawyer are responsible for verifying sources and confirming the relevance and authenticity of any AI-generated material.

According to The Indian Express, the case involved a lawsuit filed by a film director and producer who was challenging an order by the Additional Commissioner of the Konkan division overturning a decision related to eviction. The Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge and upheld the eviction order.

Legal experts note that the legislation of most countries does not explicitly prohibit the use of neural networks in preparing court filings, legal opinions, or procedural documents. However, judges, lawyers, and investigators remain personally responsible for the handling of data they obtain. As experts explain, the use of AI itself does not violate the law in any country, provided that a human remains in control of the process and does not disclose confidential information. Responsibility for the outcome lies with the person, not the algorithm, they stressed.