October 30, 2026, (Inside AI) — The Andhra Pradesh High Court has flagged an affidavit as a product of artificial intelligence, issuing a sharp warning to legal practitioners about their professional responsibilities. In an order dated October 27, Justice Subba Reddy Satti declared that the affidavit contained discrepancies and appeared to be AI-generated, directing advocates to exercise care when using such tools.
The case, a writ petition seeking directions to investigate a complaint from January 5, 2023, and to register an FIR, was dismissed. The court found that a writ petition was not the proper remedy and that the petitioner's advocate should have advised seeking relief before the appropriate forum.
The ruling arrives as courts worldwide grapple with a surge in AI-assisted legal filings. It underscores a growing tension between efficiency gains and the profession's foundational duty of accuracy. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's intervention signals that judicial tolerance for unverified AI output is wearing thin.
AI Is A Tool, Not A Master Substitute
The court's order minced no words on accountability. "AI may assist research and drafting, but responsibility for verifying every authority and fact rests with the advocate or the adjudicator, and AI-generated output is no defence to fabricated content," the bench stated. "One should not be oblivious to the fact that AI should be used as a tool, not as a master substitute."
Read: Asian Courts Declare AI Must Stay an Auxiliary Tool for Judges
Justice Satti further emphasized the dual duty of legal practitioners. "An advocate owes a duty to his client as well as to the court. The way the affidavit was drafted, this court is of the considered opinion that it is high time legal practitioners, while using AI, are careful with the tool."
The court's scrutiny revealed what it called "discrepancies" in the affidavit, leading to the conclusion that it was "a product of artificial intelligence." The bench added that if an advocate had drafted it manually, "such an effort, being part of the duty, would be commendable."
The underlying dispute involved a civil case where a person had sued the petitioner for performance of an agreement of sale. A trial court in Kakinada ruled in favor of that person on December 4, 1989, and the sale deed was executed and registered on April 27, 2005. The affidavit in question, filed by a general power of attorney holder, claimed that implementation proceedings were scrapped because the property did not exist or match official records.
This is not an isolated incident. Courts in the United States, United Kingdom, and India have all seen cases where lawyers submitted briefs containing fictitious case law generated by AI. In many instances, sanctions followed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court's order adds to a growing body of judicial warnings that treat AI as a potential source of professional liability rather than a mere convenience.
The legal profession's adoption of AI tools for research and drafting has accelerated, but verification remains a manual, time-consuming task. The court's message is clear: the responsibility cannot be delegated to an algorithm. As AI becomes more embedded in legal workflows, such rulings will likely shape ethical guidelines and training requirements for advocates.
For now, the dismissal of the writ petition serves as a reminder that procedural correctness and factual accuracy remain non-negotiable. The court's directive to be "careful" may echo beyond this single case, prompting law firms and bar associations to revisit their AI usage policies.
