Use AI practice to explore questions about a defined issue. Check every factual assertion and authority yourself; a simulated response is not a court ruling or prediction.
Prepare a bounded exercise
Start with one issue rather than uploading an entire chamber archive. Separate established facts, disputed facts and assumptions in the material you choose to provide. Use only information you are authorized to submit, and review the product's privacy information.
A useful prompt is: "Using only this supplied summary, identify factual gaps and possible questions about this issue. Label assumptions and do not invent authorities."
This can support preparation, but a prompt alone cannot guarantee that every response will follow those limits.
Review the output in three passes
- Facts: Compare each statement with the actual documents. Mark unsupported assertions.
- Authorities: Verify the existence, text and relevance of every cited authority using an authoritative source.
- Presentation: Decide which questions help clarify the submission and which rest on a mistaken assumption.
Keep the exercise separate from the case's official orders and your final instructions. Do not save an AI-generated proposition as though it were a court finding.
What the exercise cannot establish
AI output does not establish how a particular judge will decide, whether a filing will succeed, or which procedural deadline applies. Availability and quality can also vary with the underlying service and the information supplied.
The advocate remains responsible for the material used in a real submission. For Delhi High Court publications, start with the official website; district-court source links are explained in the Delhi court guide.
For a broader selection checklist, read how to evaluate AI tools.