Introduction
The Supreme Court showed criticized the use of long and bulky pleadings in a civil trial, noting that they resulted in unnecessary long judgments by both the trial court and the appellate court.
The court also raised concerns over the use of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ or computer generated statements in the court proceedings.
And hence, the Apex Court advocated the use of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC), which allows the Courts to strike or amend the pleadings that are irrelevant, vexatious, or amount to an abuse of judicial process. Pleadings should be concise and should not be confusing, the Apex Court said.
Background
This observation from Supreme Court came while deciding a dispute related to tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act, 1973 on 8 April, 2025. The Supreme Court observed that such extensively long and cumbersome pleadings led to unnecessary long judgements at both trial and appellate levels. Additionally the increasing use of AI generated or machine generated statements in legal proceedings has complicated the court proceedings.
Key points
Advocacy for Conciseness: the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of using the exact words in writing the legal proceedings, mentioning that unnecessary length can obscure the core and most important issues and can hinder the judicial process. The Apex Court held that every superfluous word distracts from the main and core issue, making it difficult for the pleading to be direct and on to the point.
Use of Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC: To address the issue of tediously lengthy pleadings the Apex Court highlighted the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which empowers the courts to strike down or amend any part of the pleadings that are deemed unnecessary, frivolous, or an abuse of the legal process. This rule serves as a tool for courts to maintain the relevance and focus of legal documents.
Challenges Posed by AI-Generated Content: the Supreme Court also acknowledged the rise of using AI generated statements in the legal pleadings. The Court pointed out that while technology can enhance the efficiency and can help in many ways during the proceedings of the court, still the Supreme Court cautioned that indiscriminate use of AI generated or machine generated content in the pleadings can lead to confusion and dilution of the primary issues in a case. The Court stressed on a balanced approach, integrating technology without compromising the clarity and precision of legal documents.
Recent developments
The Supreme Court’s observations has sparked discussions among the Legal Professionals and other related persons about the need for streamlined pleadings and responsible use of technology in legal profession. Legal Professionals are encouraged to adapt more disciplined drafting techniques, focusing on the core issues of the arguments and avoiding unnecessary elaborative pleadings during the judicial proceedings. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on establishing guidelines for the appropriate use of AI tools in legal documentation to ensure that technology serves as an aid rather than a hindrance.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent stance serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of legal drafting: clarity, conciseness, and relevance. By advocating for concise pleadings and cautioning against the unregulated use of AI-generated content, the Court aims to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process. Legal practitioners are thus urged to exercise diligence in their drafting practices, ensuring that their submissions are both precise and pertinent to the matters at hand.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
