Punjab and Haryana HC Issues Notice To Varsity On LLM Student’s Plea Over Use Of AI In Exam
The O P Jindal University received a notice from the Punjab and Haryana High Court following a petition filed by an LLM student challenging a committee decision alleging the use of AI in his exam submission. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh issued the notice, requesting the Jindal Global Law School of the university to provide a response to Kaustubh Shakkarwar’s plea to overturn the university’s decision. The scheduled hearing is set for November 14.
The petitioner requested the annulment of the decision made by the university’s examination controller and unfair means committee due to an alleged violation of natural justice principles. This was based on the claim that he was not given a chance to present his case or access the necessary documents.
Shakkarwar, an LLM candidate, has transitioned from engineering to law and specializes in intellectual property law, representing clients in different forums. Additionally, Shakkarwar serves as a junior standing counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs at the Delhi High Court.
He argued that the university had failed to provide any proof of the purported “AI-generated material” being utilized in the course ‘Law and Justice in the Globalizing World’, which resulted in his failure.
Shakkarwar took his first-term exams on May 18 and turned in his responses for the end-term subject assessment. However, he faced allegations of submitting work that was “88 percent AI-generated” and was subsequently graded as a “fail” on June 11.
The petitioner alleged that he had been told the unfair means committee would address his complaint. As a result, he submitted a memorandum of arguments and asked the university to provide documents, but he never received them.
The petitioner sought documentary evidence from the university regarding the explicit regulation that banned the utilization of AI, but received no reply. In correspondence from the committee that deemed his performance as unsuccessful, he was instructed to appeal to the examination appellate committee, necessitating a written submission to the examination controller.
The petitioner asserted that he had raised a protest, requesting information on the ‘ways, manner, and process’ of the appeals hearing before the appellate committee, with the examination controller. Subsequently, his appeal was allegedly dismissed without a hearing, following a delay of approximately four months.
The petitioner, driven by the actions of the university and lacking alternative effective appeal options, implores for the annulment of the university’s decision against him, according to his plea.
Shakkarwar further referred to the Copyright Act, highlighting that under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act of 1957, it is explicitly stated that even if the petitioner utilized AI technology, the copyright for the creative work would belong to the petitioner. Therefore, the accusation of copyright infringement is baseless.
