Punjab & Haryana HC Confiscates Lawyer’s Phone for Using AI During Arguments

A Rare Rebuke in Court: When Technology Crossed the Line

In an incident that has sparked wide debate within India’s legal community, the Punjab and Haryana High Court confiscated a lawyer’s mobile phone after discovering that he was using Google and AI tools to search for legal information in real time during oral arguments. The bench termed the act “unprofessional and distracting”, underscoring that courtroom advocacy must rely on preparation and reasoning, not on-the-spot digital research.

The episode unfolded during a hearing last week, where two advocates were caught consulting their phones mid-argument to look up case law and statutory provisions. Visibly irked, the bench observed that “court is not the place to experiment with digital shortcuts”, warning that lawyers must be fully equipped with their arguments before entering the courtroom.

The judges went a step further — seizing the lawyer’s mobile phone for the duration of the hearing — and directed that such conduct would not be tolerated. The court remarked that technology should be a tool for efficiency, not a “crutch to compensate for lack of preparation.”

Why the Court Drew the Line on Technology

The High Court’s reaction reflects a broader tension in India’s judiciary: how far should artificial intelligence and digital tools be permitted in live courtrooms?

While the judiciary has embraced technology through e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital cause lists, it remains cautious about how AI-driven research tools — including generative AI platforms and automated legal assistants — influence live advocacy.

Orderly proceedings depend on clarity, structure, and preparation. The bench made it clear that:

• Courtrooms are spaces for reasoned advocacy, not real-time online searches.

• AI tools cannot substitute professional judgment or legal understanding.

• Distractions from devices during hearings undermine decorum and focus.

The underlying message was unmistakable: while digital aids can enhance legal practice, using them during oral hearings to “crowdsource” arguments risks compromising both the dignity of the court and the discipline of advocacy.

A Question of Professional Ethics

Beyond technology, the case goes to the heart of professional ethics in the legal profession. Under Rule 11 of the Bar Council of India (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette), advocates are required to maintain dignity and decorum in court and conduct themselves with self-restraint.

The High Court’s intervention can therefore be read as a reminder that:

• Legal practice is not just about access to information but about command over the law.

• The credibility of an advocate stems from preparation, not improvisation.

• Relying on external, unverified AI-generated content can mislead courts and clients alike.

The episode echoes earlier judicial observations warning against copy-paste petitions drafted via ChatGPT or AI models, which have occasionally contained fabricated case citations — a concern that has gained prominence globally.

The Broader Context: Courts vs. AI Tools

India’s judiciary has, in recent years, cautiously welcomed technology but with strict boundaries. The Supreme Court itself has undertaken digital transformation through the SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) — an internal AI tool designed to assist judges in sifting through large case records.

However, even in that context, the Court made clear that SUPACE is a research aid, not a decision-maker. As former CJI S.A. Bobde had clarified during its launch in 2021:

“AI will never replace human discretion; it will only assist in improving judicial efficiency.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s recent action sits squarely within this philosophy — embracing AI as a backstage assistant, not as a frontline advocate.

“Technology Cannot Substitute Preparation”

During the hearing, the bench noted that the lawyer’s use of the phone during live arguments disrupted the decorum of the courtroom. It observed that while lawyers are free to conduct online research before the hearing, the use of digital devices during arguments detracts from the focus of oral advocacy.

The judges reportedly remarked:

“Arguments must flow from the advocate’s understanding of the case, not from what the internet provides in that moment.”

By confiscating the device — an unusually stern step — the bench sought to send a deterrent message: courtroom discipline extends to digital conduct. The decision has since stirred debate on where to draw the line between digital efficiency and professional decorum.

The Digital Dilemma in Modern Advocacy

The incident exposes a growing challenge in Indian legal practice — the blurring boundary between preparation and reliance on technology. With AI tools like ChatGPT, CoCounsel, and Lexis+ AI now capable of generating arguments, summarizing judgments, and drafting pleadings, young lawyers are increasingly integrating them into daily work.

However, the judiciary’s concern lies in accuracy and authenticity:

• AI tools are not infallible; they may “hallucinate” false citations or misstate law.

• Real-time use during hearings offers no opportunity for verification.

• Overdependence can erode analytical skills central to advocacy.

This caution mirrors developments in other jurisdictions. In 2023, a New York lawyer faced disciplinary action for submitting a brief containing AI-generated, non-existent case citations, leading to a judicial warning about the unchecked use of generative tools.

The Indian judiciary, too, appears intent on avoiding such pitfalls before they arise.

The Bench-Bar Relationship in the Age of AI

The High Court’s action also invites reflection on the evolving bench-bar relationship in the digital age. The bar’s increasing use of AI may challenge traditional expectations of advocacy. Yet, the judiciary’s firm stance signals that human competence remains the currency of credibility in court.

Senior advocates contacted after the hearing expressed mixed views:

• Some endorsed the Court’s position, arguing that instant AI lookups trivialize the seriousness of advocacy.

• Others suggested that controlled, transparent use of AI could enhance precision — for instance, by checking citations or identifying statutory amendments.

The incident thus marks a defining moment in India’s ongoing debate on the ethical integration of AI into legal practice.

Balancing Innovation with Integrity

The judiciary’s discomfort is not with technology itself but with its unregulated deployment. As courts digitize rapidly — from e-filing to live-streaming — the challenge is to build norms for responsible AI use.

Legal experts suggest the following possible way forward:

1. Formal Guidelines: The Bar Council of India (BCI) or the e-Committee of the Supreme Court could frame protocols for AI-assisted research and courtroom use.

2. Transparency Requirements: Lawyers using AI tools could be required to disclose when AI-generated content forms part of their submissions.

3. Training and Accreditation: Law schools and bar training programs must include AI literacy and ethical modules.

4. Judicial Oversight: Courts could set internal benchmarks on acceptable uses of digital tools during hearings.

Such frameworks would strike a balance between technological empowerment and professional integrity.

The Need for Digital Etiquette in Courts

As India’s legal system transitions toward hybrid courts and digital processes, the need for digital etiquette becomes pressing. The High Court’s confiscation of a lawyer’s phone, while extreme, underscores the absence of codified courtroom norms for mobile and AI use.

Modern courtrooms increasingly feature laptops, digital case files, and e-briefs. However, using AI chat interfaces or search engines mid-hearing blurs the line between preparation and improvisation.

Experts note that India must now evolve a Digital Code of Conduct for Advocates, akin to media or corporate digital-use policies. This could clarify permissible behavior without stifling innovation.

AI and the Future of Legal Ethics

The High Court’s intervention may well accelerate discussions within the legal fraternity on how to ethically integrate AI tools into advocacy. The Bar Council of India’s legal education reforms, announced earlier this year, already propose introducing AI and legal data analytics into curricula. Yet, as this episode shows, technological literacy must go hand-in-hand with ethical discipline.

The key question is not whether AI should be used — but how, when, and under what safeguards. The line between efficiency and dependency will shape the next decade of legal professionalism in India.

A Moment of Reckoning for the Digital Bar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s move may appear harsh, but it reflects a judicial system grappling with the realities of AI-assisted lawyering. The bench’s stern warning was not a rejection of technology, but a reaffirmation of the core values of advocacy — diligence, discipline, and preparation.

The court’s message, in essence, is timeless — whether armed with books or algorithms, the lawyer’s first duty remains to the court and to the truth.