AI can substitute neither human intelligence nor the humane element in the adjudicatory process. The Delhi High Court has held that ChatGPT can't be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. 

Justice Prathiba M Singh stated that the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data is still in the grey area, and at best, such a tool can be utilized for a preliminary understanding or preliminary research. 

The Court's observations came while dealing with a lawsuit by luxury brand Christian Louboutin against a partnership firm involved in the manufacture and sale of shoes allegedly violating its trademark. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that "Red Sole Shoe" was its registered trademark in India and placed before court responses by ChatGPT with respect to its "reputation". 

The Court ordered that ChatGPT cannot be the basis of adjudication of legal or factual issues in a court of law. The response of a Large Language Model (LLM) based chatbot such as ChatGPT, which is sought to be relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiff, depends upon a host of factors, including the nature and structure of the query put by the user, the training data, etc. Further, there are possibilities of incorrect responses, fictional case laws, imaginative data, etc., generated by AI chatbots. 

As per their observation, the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data are still in the grey area. There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that at the present stage of technological development, AI cannot substitute either human intelligence or the humane element in the adjudicatory process. At best, the tool could be utilized for a preliminary understanding or preliminary research and nothing more. 

Based on the comparative analysis of the products of the two parties, the Court ultimately ruled that the defendant had a clear intention to imitate and gain monetarily on the strength of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff.