Neither ChatGPT nor any other AI tool can be equated with a qualified teacher: Madras High Court

Published 17 June 2026 · tech

Neither ChatGPT nor any other Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool can ever be equated with a qualified lecturer. Artificial intelligence may come close to human intelligence

Neither ChatGPT nor any other Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool can ever be equated with a qualified lecturer. Artificial intelligence may come close to human intelligence but cannot teach the aspects of integrity and morality that are also ethical pillars of legal profession. Such lessons can only be learnt in a vibrant classroom, the Madras High Court has said. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar made the observations while setting aside an order passed by a single judge who had permitted three government law college students, lacking the required 65% attendance, to write the examinations after attending special classes during summer vacation, without having to sit idle for an entire academic year. The Bench allowed three writ appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and said, it was essential to ensure that students, who attended classes regularly and secured the legally-mandated attendance, should not be made to feel that a differential treatment was being accorded to a select few by letting them write examinations despite lacking the requisite attendance.

“In a highly competitive educational landscape, it is only after extreme hard work put in by the students that they are able to secure a seat through merit in a college of their choice. Many students from financially and socially challenging backgrounds end up taking alternate courses, since they are unable to get the courses of their choice. So it is imperative that students must realise the value of the seat secured by them,” the judges wrote. Stating that their observations would apply with more vigour to those studying law, the Bench said, “Law is a valuable educational stream and it directly connects the students with the legal and human rights prevalent in the society thereby affording them an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless.

Legal education is not just for making money, it traverses beyond that. It requires a commitment to the society and to the Constitution thereby requiring the presence of collective and diverse voices of the students in a classroom.” Authoring the judgement, Justice Subramaniam also said: “It is from classroom debates and dynamic social discussions that legal ideas and novelty emanates. Classrooms provide a platform for the students to debate and engage in productive discussions thereby creating a future for a generation of energetic and vibrant legal professionals.” The judges were also of the view that online classes could provide an avenue for learning only when a need arises but they could not be a permanent substitute for physical mode of learning.