AI tools and payment of 4 jackets: How a hosiery trader's PIL against PM CARES unravelled before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to bring about greater transparency with respect to the PM CARES Fund.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also rebuked the petitioner, one Rajnish Sidhu, and said that the petition appeared to be drafted by somebody else though the petitioner claimed that it was his own work.

"It looks like petitioner has lent his shoulders to someone who has drafted a vague, wild petition. The tone, tenor and so called constitutional principle sought to be raised cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner who is a small-time trader. We, however, do not order a roving inquiry for such frivolous plea," the Court said while rejecting the plea.

The petitioner, a hosiery trader from Ludhiana, moved the Court seeking a declaration that the PM CARES Fund be treated as 'State' under Article 12 and be subjected to constitutional transparency obligations under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).

When the matter was called, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner directly:

"Have you drafted the plea?"

The petitioner replied,

"Yes myself. I can deposit my phone here."

The Court then questioned Sidhu about his educational background. He said that he was a Class XII pass from Sanatan Dharm School in Ludhiana.

The Court did not accept the answer at face value.

"I will arrange an English exam here in court. If you score 30 marks, I will see it then," the Chief Justice said.

"Yes, yes I can," Sidhu replied.

"Either you tell the truth or we impose huge costs and order a probe," the Bench warned.

"You can see my phone," Sidhu maintained.

The Court then turned to the language of the petition itself.

"What does fiduciary risk to corporate donors etc that you have written, what does it mean?" the Bench asked.

The counsel replied that he could refer to the plea.

CJI Kant did not let it pass.

"I am asking last time which lawyer drafted it. You have not done it," he said.

At this juncture, the petitioner conceded that he had used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to draft the plea and had utilised the service of a typist to get the petition typed out.

"I have searched AI tools. I also gifted 4 jackets to a typist and he charged ₹1,000 per hour for typing," Sidhu said.

The Court then said that the typist should be summoned.

"Supreme Court typist made the petition. Call the typist here."

The typist was, however, not ultimately called and the Court chose not to pursue that inquiry further.

The Bench proceeded to dismiss the petition while also issuing a stern warning against filing such petitions in the near future.

"Jao jakar kuch aur sweater banakar becho. Yeh sab PIL karoge toh cost dena pad jayega (Go, make and sell some sweaters...If you file such PILs, you will have to pay costs)," the CJI remarked.

[Read Live Coverage]