Student goes to court after OP Jindal Global Law School fails him over ‘AI-generated’ answers

A law student has reportedly filed a lawsuit against OP Jindal Global University. The law school accused the student of using artificial intelligence (AI) to answer exam questions and subsequently failed him in the course. Kaustubh Shakkarwar, pursuing a Masters of Law (LLM) degree, denies the allegations and claims he answered the questions independently.
According to a report by Bar and Bench, Shakkarwar appeared for the “Law and Justice in the Globalising World” exam on May 18. On June 25, the university’s Unfair Means Committee informed him that his answers were “88% AI-generated,” leading to his failure in the subject.
The lawsuit challenges the university’s decision and its method of determining AI-generated content. Justice Jasgurpeet Singh Puri of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also listed the matter for further hearing on November 14.
As per the report, Shakkarwar also has a background in law and AI. He previously worked as a law researcher with the Chief Justice of India and currently runs his own AI platform related to litigation, in addition to practising Intellectual Property law.

What the lawsuit alleges against OP Jindal Law School

Shakkarwar argued in court that the university lacks a clear policy prohibiting the use of AI-generated content in examinations, challenging the basis of his failing grade.
Shakkarwar moved the plea through advocate Prabhneer Swani who said: “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.”
He further defended his exam answers, asserting that they were his original work and not AI-generated. He argued that the university provided no evidence to support their claim of AI assistance.
Moreover, he challenged that AI is merely a tool, and copyright cannot be attributed to AI-generated content. He emphasised that plagiarism requires a violation of copyright, which cannot be established in this case.
“Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, makes it amply clear that, arguendo, if the Petitioner did even use AI, the copyright of the artistic work would lie with the petitioner, and thus the allegation of violation of copyright, fails,” Shakkarwar added.