Delhi HC Stays Rs 1.08 Crore Decree Against Akasa Air Over Suspected AI Use in Judgment

The Delhi High Court has stayed a decree directing Akasa Air to pay Rs 1.08 crore to a travel agency. The court raised concerns that portions of the trial court's judgment appeared to be AI-generated. The dispute involved cancellation of 640 tickets booked by ABS Tours and Travels. The High Court found the damages computation flawed and listed the matter for further hearing in 2026.

Key Points: Delhi HC Stays Akasa Air Decree, Flags Possible AI Use in Judgment

  • Delhi HC stays Rs 1.08 crore decree against Akasa Air
  • Court flags portions of trial judgment as AI-generated
  • Airline cancelled 640 tickets over pre-deposit compliance
  • HC finds damages computation fundamentally flawed
2 min read

Delhi HC stays Rs 1.08 crore decree against Akasa Air; raises concerns over possible AI use in trial court judgment

Delhi High Court stays Rs 1.08 crore decree against Akasa Air, raising concerns over apparent AI-generated content in the trial court judgment.

"Attributing non-existent propositions to judicial precedents is a matter of concern. - Delhi High Court Bench"

New Delhi, May 4

The Delhi High Court has stayed a decree passed by a Saket District Commercial Court directing Akasa Air to pay Rs 1.08 crore to a travel agency for canceling 640 tickets, while also raising concerns over the apparent use of artificial intelligence tools in drafting the impugned judgment.

A Division Bench of Justice Pratibha Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, in its order dated April 30 observed that portions of the trial court's judgment appeared prima facie to be AI-generated.

The high Court noted that the manner of drafting, especially in distinguishing case laws, along with references to non-existent statutory provisions and misreading of Supreme Court decisions, raised serious concerns about the adjudicatory process.

The issue was highlighted before the HC on the basis that multiple AI-detection tools had flagged key portions of the judgment including those central to the reasoning as entirely AI-generated. The Bench remarked that attributing non-existent propositions to judicial precedents is a matter of concern.

The dispute arose from the cancellation of 640 tickets booked by Delhi based ABS Tours and Travels. The airline argued that the travel agent failed to comply with pre-deposit requirements under its terms and conditions, following which the bookings were cancelled and the amount refunded. The District Court, however, awarded ₹1.08 crore to the travel agency as loss of profits.

On the question of damages, the High Court found the computation by the trial court to be fundamentally flawed, noting that the entire ticket value had been treated as profit without deducting the cost of procurement. It held that such an approach is clearly unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and listed the matter for further hearing on August 20, 2026.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Finally, the High Court stepping in! The trial court's logic of treating the entire ticket value as profit without deducting procurement costs is laughable. 😂 That's basic accounting! Glad the HC is applying proper legal reasoning here. This sets a worrying precedent if AI-generated judgments become common.
A
Arjun K
As someone working in tech, I see AI tools being used everywhere now, but this is crossing a line. A judge's judgment is supposed to be the result of careful study of the law and facts. Using ChatGPT to write verdicts makes a mockery of our justice system. Kudos to the Delhi HC for catching this! 👏
R
Raghav A
While the trial court clearly made mistakes, I also feel for the travel agency. They booked 640 tickets in good faith and lost their money when Akasa cancelled them. However, the amount of ₹1.08 crore seems excessive. The HC's stay is correct - the trial court should have verified the damages more carefully rather than relying on AI-generated reasoning.
M
Manish T
This is a wake-up call for the judiciary. AI can assist in research but cannot replace human judgment. The trial court judge should face an inquiry for using AI to draft judgments. Also, non-existent statutory provisions? That's a serious issue. The HC needs to ensure this doesn't happen again. Two years for the next hearing? That's too long, though. 😤
L
Lisa P
I've seen AI-generated legal documents in the US, but using it for a court judgment in India is concerning. The Delhi HC's observation about AI detection tools flagging portions of the verdict is telling. We need clear guidelines on AI use in the judiciary

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50