Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has told newly inducted Advocates-on-Record to draft petitions personally and not outsource legal work to artificial intelligence or anyone else. The message came at an induction ceremony on April 16, where the Chief Justice spent much of his address spelling out what he expects from the new batch and what the AoR designation is meant to carry with it.
Why the Designation Matters
AoRs are a distinct category in the legal profession. Only an Advocate-on-Record can file a petition before the Supreme Court; other advocates may argue a case only if they have been briefed by an AoR. The Chief Justice framed this position as more than a procedural convenience. AoRs, he said, are the primary point of accountability between the litigant and the Court, and the responsibility that comes with the title extends well beyond getting papers on the docket.
He added that the role demands an ethical register that is not optional. Honesty, thorough preparation, and a deep respect for the institution must guide every AoR. Those qualities also aid the Court in practical terms: clear submissions and punctual appearances make the administration of justice faster; the opposite slows everything down.
The Caution on AI and Outsourcing
The sharpest part of the address concerned how petitions get drafted. Filing is not a mechanical exercise, the Chief Justice cautioned, and pleadings are not something an AoR can hand off to a tool or a third party and still claim ownership of. Every brief must be read carefully before it is placed before the Court. The responsibility for what a petition contains rests, finally, with the advocate who files it.
That principle applies both ways. The Chief Justice specifically warned against filing matters blindly on the instructions of another counsel — a pattern where an AoR simply puts their name on what a briefing lawyer has drafted, without applying independent judgment. Outsourcing to AI sits in the same family. In either case, the AoR’s signature is on the pleading, and so is the professional accountability.
What the Court Expects on Paper
On the standard of drafting, the Chief Justice was specific. Pleadings must be properly drafted. Facts must be meticulously verified. Legal grounds must be soundly framed. These are not aspirational descriptions; they are the working standard the Court expects from an AoR on any given day.
Seniority, he observed, is attained over time. Credibility is not. Credibility has to be established from the very first day of practice, and every matter — however modest — contributes to the record an advocate builds over a career. An AoR cannot afford to treat any filing as beneath close attention.
Officers of the Court, Not Just Members of the Bar
Concluding the address, the Chief Justice returned to the theme he had opened with. Advocates-on-Record are not simply members of the Bar. They are officers of the Court, and the judicial system extends them trust on that footing. That trust is not given once; it is renewed, or lost, with each petition filed. The Chief Justice urged the new inductees to respond to it through diligence and integrity in every matter, and wished them well as they begin this phase of their careers.
The remarks arrive at a point when questions about the use of generative AI in legal drafting have surfaced in courts across jurisdictions, including in India, where benches have pulled up lawyers for filing material generated by AI tools without verification. The Chief Justice’s address did not single out any specific tool, but the caution was unambiguous: whatever the drafting aid, the responsibility on paper belongs to the AoR alone.
