University gets HC notice after law student is accused of using AI for assignment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked OP Jindal Global University to respond to a student's claim that his exam was unfairly marked as AI-generated.

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Monday called upon OP Jindal Global University to respond to a plea from an LLM student disputing the university’s decision that his exam submission was “AI-generated”, in a matter that could set a new precedent on Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage and intellectual property (IP) rights in academia.

A woman walks past a building whose exterior wall was painted to look like a circuit board with an AI logo in Hangzhou, in China's eastern Zhejiang province. (AFP)

The legal challenge has been initiated by Kaustubh Shakkarwar -- a practising attorney and former law researcher with the Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, contesting the decision made by the university’s “unfair means committee”, which determined that 88% of his exam answers in the course “Law and Justice in the Globalizing World” were AI-generated, resulting in a failing grade.

The committee’s ruling was subsequently upheld by the Controller of Examinations. Shakkarwar argued that the work is entirely his own and that the university’s anti-plagiarism policies, which would define AI as “unfair means,” are neither formally approved nor enforceable, leaving the regulations open to dispute.

Admitting his petition, justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri issued a notice to the university, scheduling the next hearing for November 14.

Large language models (also commonly abbreviated as LLM -- the same as the master’s degree in law) by OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude, have sparked a debate over the boundaries of AI use in academic work, authorship rights, and ethical complexities especially since it is notoriously difficult to accurately detect AI-generated text. Tools for detection launched in recent years have failed to label texts from such constantly evolving chatbots, while having also often mistakenly flagging human-generated text as from AI.

To be sure, Shakkarwar’s argument went beyond simply defending his submission. In his petition, he invokes Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, claiming that even if he had incorporated AI assistance, he retains the copyright as the principal author.

“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,” the petition stated.

The petition further emphasised that copyright law acknowledges “human authorship” even when tools -- whether software or AI -- are employed in the creation process. Shakkarwar’s interpretation sought to bring up the question whether AI collaboration diminish human intellectual property rights.

Shakkarwar enrolled in the Intellectual Property and Technology Law (blended learning program) in November, 2023. The course has three semesters. All exams are taken at home.

Shakkarwar’s petition has also argued that the university’s rules, defining plagiarism, were “never properly approved or gazetted, making them unenforceable”. The petition also contended that the university has “failed to provide these rules despite multiple requests, violating principles of natural justice.” Shakkarwar also claimed that the university’s actions do not comply with regulations governing student grievances which mandates the setting up of a grievance redressal committee in all universities.

Shakkarwar’s lawyer Prabhneer Swani told HT: “The matter is sub-judice and can’t say much about it since this is a developing area of law; however as the firm has expertise in Intellectual property rights and tech-law both; we intend to seek justice and regulatory measures in this emerging sector.”

HT also reached out to Jindal for a response. The university, however, refrained from commenting, citing the ongoing judicial process.

In many ways, the decision of the constitutional court is likely to serve as a litmus test, signalling how institutions might approach AI-driven creativity and set a definitive course for intellectual property rights in the age of AI.