Delhi HC stays trial court’s order against Akasa Air over alleged AI use in judgement

The court directed that the operation of the verdict would remain stayed, subject to Akasa Air depositing ₹20 lakh with the court’s Registrar General by May 30.

The Delhi high court has stayed a trial court order directing Akasa Air to pay ₹1.08 crore to a travel agent, after the airline raised concerns that the district court judge may have used artificial intelligence (AI) to draft the ruling.

The court observed that if the trial court judgment had indeed relied on non-existent propositions of law.

A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain, in its April 30 ruling, observed that, prima facie, the manner in which the judgment was written suggested possible AI use, and said the issue would require closer examination before reaching any definitive conclusion.

The court directed that the operation of the verdict would remain stayed, subject to Akasa Air depositing ₹20 lakh with the court’s Registrar General by May 30.

“The manner of drafting and the manner in which the text distinguishing the case laws is set out in the impugned judgement, prima facie, gives an impression that there is some AI software which may have been used for the same. However, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively said until further examination as to whether any AI software has been used by the District Judge and if so, whether the same judgment has been properly reviewed or not,” the court said.

The court observed that if the trial court judgment had indeed relied on non-existent propositions of law, as alleged by Akasa Air, it would be a matter of concern. “If non-existent propositions are attributed to judgements, it is a matter of concern,” the order read.

The court passed the order while dealing with the trial court’s February 24 order directing the airline to pay ₹1.08 crore to a Delhi-based travel agent. The dispute stemmed from a suit filed by a travel agent against Akasa Air over the cancellation of 640 bookings made during the festive season.

In its appeal before the high court, the airline contended that the impugned judgment appeared to have been drafted using AI, as it cited non-existent propositions of law attributed to real case laws. The airline argued that even its cited precedents had been distinguished using AI tools, and that awarding the entire ticket revenue as loss of profits was legally untenable.

The matter will be next heard on August 20.

To be sure, the Supreme Court, while taking cognisance in February of a trial court’s reliance on allegedly non-existent judgments generated by AI, observed that a decision based on such fake precedents would not merely be an error in decision-making but could amount to misconduct.