{
  "id": 17190659,
  "title": "Andhra Pradesh High Court flags AI use in affidavit: ‘It is a tool, not a master substitute’",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/30/andhra-pradesh-high-court-flags-ai-use-in-affidavit-it-is-a-tool-not",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-10-30T06:41:28.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/ai-tool-master-substitute-andhra-pradesh-high-court-ai-written-affidavit-10942987/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed caution regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting affidavits, urging advocates to employ AI as a tool rather than a master substitute. In a recent ruling, Justice Subba Reddy Satti emphasized that while AI can be beneficial in research and drafting, the responsibility to verify every authority and fact lies with the advocate or the adjudicator. The court clarified that AI-generated output is insufficient as a defense against fabricated content. The bench stressed that an advocate owes a duty to their client and to the court, and the manner in which the affidavit was drafted suggested that it was a product of AI, which could be considered commendable if done within the scope of professional responsibility. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner who had alleged that the implementation proceedings of a civil case were unjustly halted due to the non-existence of a property. The court noted that a civil case had been filed against the petitioner seeking performance of an agreement of sale, and a judgment in favor of the opposing party was passed by the trial court in 1989. The property in question was subsequently sold and registered in favor of the petitioner. However, the petitioner's affidavit stated that the proceedings of the case had been abandoned because the property did not exist, was unidentifiable, and did not match official records. The high court concluded that a writ petition would not be an appropriate remedy for the case and suggested that the advocate of the petitioner should have advised him to pursue proper legal remedies through the appropriate forum.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}