Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday cautioned newly qualified advocates against relying on artificial intelligence or other external parties for legal drafting, stressing that such work must be done personally by the advocate-on-record. Speaking at the convocation of advocates-on-record, he underlined that the legal profession carries ethical responsibilities that cannot be delegated.
Under the rules framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution, only advocates designated as advocates-on-record are permitted to argue for a party in the apex court. The Supreme Court conducts examinations before granting that designation.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
CJI Stresses Personal Responsibility in Drafting
Addressing the new batch, the Chief Justice said advocates-on-record are not merely members of the bar but also officials of the court. He said the judiciary relies heavily on their hard work and that the trust placed in them forms the basis of their professional reputation.
He urged them to ensure that all legal drafting is handled personally and not outsourced to artificial intelligence tools or other outside parties. The remarks placed emphasis on the individual accountability attached to every filing made before the court.
Role of Advocates-on-Record Reaffirmed
The Chief Justice also drew attention to the distinct position occupied by advocates-on-record within the Supreme Court system. As per the court’s rules, they alone are authorised to represent parties in proceedings before the apex court.
The designation carries both privilege and responsibility, with the court expecting high professional standards from those entrusted with that role. His remarks suggested that competence in procedure must be matched by integrity in preparation and presentation.
Warning Against Routine Filing Culture
Chief Justice Surya Kant also told the new advocates not to treat filing as a routine exercise. He advised them to read every brief carefully and reminded them that each petition bearing their name reflects their own professional judgment and integrity.
The address served as a broader reminder that legal practice before the Supreme Court demands diligence, personal involvement and ethical discipline, particularly at a time when technological tools are increasingly entering professional workspaces.
