• HOME»
  • »
  • Law Student Sues Jindal Global Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

Law Student Sues Jindal Global Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

A law student has taken legal action against OP Jindal Global University after failing his final exam due to claims that he used artificial intelligence (AI) to respond to the test questions. Background of the Lawsuit The student, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, is pursuing a Master of Laws (LLM) in Intellectual Property and Technology Laws at the […]

Advertisement
Law Student Sues Jindal Global Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

A law student has taken legal action against OP Jindal Global University after failing his final exam due to claims that he used artificial intelligence (AI) to respond to the test questions.

Background of the Lawsuit

The student, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, is pursuing a Master of Laws (LLM) in Intellectual Property and Technology Laws at the Jindal Global Law School. According to a report from Bar and Bench, he has rejected the university’s accusation that he relied on AI-generated responses during his examination.

Shakkarwar stated in his petition that he took the end-term exam for the course titled “Law and Justice in the Globalising World” on May 18. He received notification from the Unfair Means Committee on June 25, informing him that his answers were deemed “88% AI-generated,” which resulted in his failure for the subject.

Court’s Involvement

Following this decision, the Controller of Examinations supported the committee’s ruling. In response, Shakkarwar, who has experience as a researcher for the Chief Justice of India, has now brought his case to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, disputing the allegations of AI usage.

The court has instructed OP Jindal Global University to reply to Shakkarwar’s petition and has scheduled a hearing for November 14.

Student’s Defense

In his legal filing, Shakkarwar, who operates an AI platform related to legal litigation, emphasized that the answers he submitted were his original work and that he did not utilize any AI tools. He criticized the university for not providing clear guidelines regarding AI usage and contended that plagiarism could only be proven if there was a breach of copyright.

He stated, “The university is silent to state that use of AI would amount to ‘plagiarism’ and thus, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for what is not explicitly prohibited,” as noted in his petition. Additionally, he claimed that the university failed to provide any substantial evidence to back their accusations against him.

Advertisement