The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed a tense exchange when Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned a trader from Punjab’s Ludhiana who had filed a public interest litigation seeking to bring the PM CARES Fund under the Right to Information Act. What began as a routine hearing quickly turned into a detailed questioning of the petitioner about the origin of the petition.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan, sought to understand whether the man had personally drafted the legal document or received assistance from others.
Why Did The Supreme Court Question The Ludhiana Trader Over His Petition?
The man appeared before the court as a petitioner in person. He told the bench that he had studied till Class 12 and runs a hosiery trading business in Ludhiana.
The Chief Justice asked about his income, and the petitioner said he had paid around Rs 5.25 lakh in income tax last year. When asked if he had ever approached any High Court before filing the case in the Supreme Court, the trader said this was his first petition.
Looking at the document, the Chief Justice expressed doubts that the petitioner had written it himself. He said the petition contained complex legal phrases and asked the man to explain one such term, “Fiduciary Risk of Corporate Donors.”
The trader could not provide a clear answer. The Chief Justice then said, “I will take your test here. If you score even 30 per cent, I will believe that you wrote this petition.”
What Explanation Did The Petitioner Give About Drafting The PIL?
The petitioner maintained that he had written the petition on his own, but used the help of three or four AI tools as he could not afford a lawyer.
He also told the court that a typist named “Mr Das” had helped format the document. The trader said he had gifted the typist four jackets and that the typist had asked for Rs 1,000 per hour.
The Supreme Court directed the typist to appear before the bench. While dismissing the petition, the court said it contained “vague, wild, frivolous and scandalous allegations” and had been filed “without any sense of responsibility.”
However, the bench decided not to pursue a deeper investigation and dismissed the case with a warning.
