Using AI Tool Is Welcome, But Advocates & Parties Must Cross Verify Genuineness Of Case References Generated By It: Bombay High Court
The Petitioner had filed the petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the impugned Judgment of the Additional Commissioner setting aside the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority.
Justice M.M. Sathaye, Bombay High Court
While dealing with a rent dispute matter where repetitive submissions were made using an AI tool and the referenced case could not be found anywhere, the Bombay High Court has held that the practice of dumping such submissions and making the Court go through irrelevant or non-existing material must be deprecated and nipped at bud.
The Petitioner had filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the impugned Judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in a Revision Application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), setting aside the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority.
Considering the fact that the written submissions were prepared using an AI tool, the Single Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye held, “A strong pointer is seen from a reference made to one alleged caselaw “Jyoti w/o Dinesh Tulsiani Vs. Elegant Associates”. Neither citation is given nor a copy of judgment is supplied by the Respondent. This Court and its law clerks were at pains to find out this caselaw but could not find. This has resulted in waste of precious judicial time. 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. This Court finds that the Respondent has simply filed written submissions by signing them 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. This is not assistance to the Court. This is a hurdle in swift delivery of justice. This Court will not take such practices kindly and it is going to result in costs. If an advocate is found to be indulging in such practice, then even stricter action of referring to Bar Council may follow”, it added.
Advocate Janay Jain represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The Petitioner (a film director and producer) is a licensor, and the Respondent is a licensee in respect of a suit flat. The Petitioner is the owner of the suit flat. The Respondent is an incorporated company represented by its Director - Yasin Mohammed (party in person). The Respondent is also a film producer. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the MRC Act, contending that the Respondent was inducted as licensee in the suit flat under a registered leave and license agreement for a period of 22 months for residential use only. The Respondent committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the leave and license agreement, and therefore, the Petitioner terminated the agreement by notice/writing.
The Respondent did not comply, and instead of vacating the suit flat alleged that the Petitioner agreed to transfer the suit flat in favour of the Respondent. The City Civil Court did not grant any ad-interim relief. The petitioner prayed for the recovery of possession as well as compensation. The Competent Authority (Rent Act), which heard and tried the said application for eviction, allowed it, thereby directing the Respondent to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flat to the Petitioner. In revision, the Revisional Authority - Additional Commissioner, under Section 44 of the MRC Act, set aside the eviction order. It was in these circumstances that the Petitioner licensor/landlord approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the impugned order, the Bench noted that the Revisional Authority had interfered with the order of the Competent Authority. The Bench noticed that the leave and licence agreement in question indicated the purpose of the licence as residential use of the suit-flat. Therefore, as per the Bench, the application under section 24 of the MRC Act was maintainable. “This clearly shows that the Revisional Authority has not read the foundational document of leave and license as a whole and has only considered the selective clauses, for reasons best known to it. In such circumstances, in my view, the Revisional Authority has perversely appreciated the purpose of licence”, it added.
The Bench also made it clear that the consideration of liability arising out of a film production Contract was beyond the scope of Section 44 of the MRC Act, and the impugned order suffered from such perversity. It was noticed that the consideration of photographs showing fixtures and furniture of a commercial nature indicated the use of the suit flat by the Respondent for commercial purposes. It was concluded that the leave and license was granted for the purpose of residential use only.
Considering the use of AI tools such as Chat GPT in the written submissions, the Bench held that the advocate using such tools has to cross-verify the references and make sure that the material generated by the machine/computer is really relevant, genuine and in existence.
Holding that the application was nothing but an attempt by the Respondent to pressurise the Petitioner, the Bench allowed the petition, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority and directed the Respondent to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the High Court Employees Medical Fund.
Cause Title: Mr Deepak s/o Shivkumar Bahry v. Heart & Soul Entertainment Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:828)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Janay Jain, Rishabh Jadhav, Parinam Law Associates
Respondent: Director of Respondent Mohammed Yasin