The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed by a Ludhiana hosiery trader seeking transparency in the PM CARES Fund after he admitted using AI tools and paying a typist with four jackets. The Court rebuked the petitioner, calling the plea vague and warning against filing frivolous PILs.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions to increase transparency in the functioning of the PM CARES Fund. The Court also strongly criticised the petitioner during the hearing and warned against filing vague or frivolous petitions.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan heard the matter. The petition was filed by Rajnish Sidhu, a hosiery trader from Ludhiana, who had asked the Court to declare the PM CARES Fund as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: PM CARES Fund Has Right to Privacy Under RTI Even If Controlled by Govt: Delhi High Court
He argued that if the fund were treated as “State,” it would be subject to constitutional obligations such as transparency and accountability under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
However, the Bench was not convinced with the petition and questioned whether the petitioner had actually drafted it himself. The judges observed that the language and legal arguments in the petition appeared too complex for the petitioner’s background and suspected that someone else may have prepared the document.
While dismissing the petition, the Court remarked,
“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.”
During the hearing, the Chief Justice directly asked the petitioner about the preparation of the petition and said,
“Have you drafted the plea?”
The petitioner responded confidently,
“Yes myself. I can deposit my phone here.”
The Bench then asked him about his educational qualifications. Sidhu informed the Court that he had completed his schooling till Class XII from Sanatan Dharm School in Ludhiana. The response, however, did not satisfy the Court.
Questioning the petitioner further, the Chief Justice remarked,
“I will arrange an English exam here in court. If you score 30 marks, I will see it then.”
Sidhu replied,
“Yes, yes I can.”
The Bench then warned the petitioner about the consequences of not being truthful and stated,
“Either you tell the truth or we impose huge costs and order a probe.”
Despite the warning, Sidhu maintained that he had prepared the petition and said,
“You can see my phone.”
The Court then examined the language used in the petition and raised questions about certain legal terms written in it. Referring to a specific phrase, the Bench asked,
“What does fiduciary risk to corporate donors etc that you have written, what does it mean?”
At this stage, the counsel appearing in the matter attempted to refer to the contents of the petition for clarification. However, the Chief Justice insisted on getting a direct explanation from the petitioner and said,
“I am asking last time which lawyer drafted it. You have not done it.”
Eventually, the petitioner admitted that he had taken help from Artificial Intelligence tools to prepare the petition and had also engaged a typist to type the document.
Explaining the process, Sidhu told the Court,
“I have searched AI tools. I also gifted 4 jackets to a typist and he charged ₹1,000 per hour for typing.”
Following this admission, the Bench remarked that the typist should be summoned to clarify the situation and said,
“Supreme Court typist made the petition. Call the typist here.”
However, the Court ultimately chose not to pursue the inquiry regarding the typist and decided to close the matter.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Overturns CIC Order on PM CARES Fund Disclosure
While dismissing the PIL, the Bench also issued a strong warning to the petitioner and advised him against filing such petitions in the future without proper understanding or legal basis.
Before concluding the hearing, the Chief Justice made a sharp remark directed at the petitioner, stating,
“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).”
With these observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea, emphasising that courts should not be burdened with poorly drafted or baseless public interest litigations. The Bench also made it clear that the misuse of PIL jurisdiction could attract heavy costs in the future.
Click Here to Read More Reports on PM CARES
