The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to bring the PM CARES Fund under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, after questioning the petitioner — a trader from Ludhiana — about the authorship of the plea.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan, expressed doubts over whether the petitioner had drafted the petition himself.

The petitioner, who appeared in person before the court, informed the bench that he had studied up to Class 12 and runs a small hosiery trading business in Ludhiana. The court’s attention was drawn to the petition as it contained complex legal arguments and terminology typically used in constitutional litigation.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner about his background and whether he had previously approached any High Court before directly filing the PIL in the Supreme Court. The petitioner replied that this was his first legal action.

The bench also questioned him about certain legal expressions used in the petition, including the phrase “fiduciary risk of corporate donors.” The petitioner was unable to explain its meaning.

When asked directly who had drafted the petition, the petitioner initially maintained that he had prepared it himself and said he had not taken advice from any lawyer.

However, he later informed the court that he had used a few artificial intelligence tools to help draft the petition as he could not afford legal assistance. He added that a typist, identified as “Mr Das,” had helped format the document.

The petitioner told the court that the typist had charged ₹1,000 per hour and that he had gifted him four jackets as a token of appreciation.

Taking note of this submission, the Supreme Court directed the typist to appear before the bench.

While dismissing the PIL, the court observed that the petition had been filed “without any sense of responsibility” and contained “vague, wild, frivolous and scandalous allegations.” The bench, however, decided not to pursue a deeper inquiry into who may have assisted in drafting the petition.

Before concluding the hearing, the Chief Justice advised the petitioner to return to his business and cautioned that filing petitions on behalf of others could expose him to legal consequences