In a landmark case that could set a precedent for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic settings, an LLM student at Jindal Global Law School has sued the university for failing him after he used AI-generated content in an exam. The student, Kausttubh Shakkarwar, who holds a distinguished position as a former law researcher for the Chief Justice of India, claims that the university’s decision to fail him was unfair and lacks a solid legal basis.
The controversy stems from Shakkarwar’s submission of AI-generated answers for his end-term exam in the ‘Law and Justice in the Globalizing World’ course. The university’s Unfair Means Committee accused him of submitting 88% AI-generated content, leading to his failing grade. This decision was upheld by the Controller of Examinations.
Shakkarwar, however, vehemently denies these accusations and argues that there are no explicit restrictions on using AI-generated content in the university’s examination regulations. He contends that the university cannot punish him for a practice that isn’t specifically prohibited. Further, he insists that the content he submitted was original and not merely a verbatim copy from AI.
Shakkarwar’s legal challenge hinges on the argument that the university’s action violates his fundamental right to fair examination practices. He emphasizes that AI was utilized as a tool to enhance his understanding and potentially improve his answers, not as a substitute for original thought. He believes that the university’s decision to fail him without providing concrete evidence of plagiarism is arbitrary and unfair.
The case has sparked a lively debate about the evolving role of AI in education and the need for clear guidelines regarding its use in academic assessments. The court’s decision in this case could have significant implications for universities across India, prompting them to revisit their policies on AI-generated content in exams.
Shakkarwar’s legal team is pressing for a declaration from the court that there is no copyright violation in his use of AI. They argue that the university’s accusations are based on a flawed understanding of copyright law and that, in fact, any copyright for the AI-generated content would belong to Shakkarwar, not the AI tool.
This case raises crucial questions about the intersection of technology, education, and legal frameworks. As AI continues to advance and become more integrated into various aspects of our lives, the legal and ethical implications of its use need careful consideration, especially in academic settings. The outcome of Shakkarwar’s legal challenge will undoubtedly have a far-reaching impact on the future of AI in education and the broader legal landscape.
