AI Or Authentic? LLM Student Battles University Over ‘AI-Generated’ Exam Allegation

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought a response from OP Jindal Global University on a student’s petition challenging the university’s claim that his exam answers were AI-generated. The student, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, argues that there is no explicit ban on AI use in submissions and contends that AI should be considered a tool, with copyright resting with the human user.

Chandigarh: Today, on Novermber 4th, the Punjab and Haryana High Court requested a response from OP Jindal Global University concerning a petition filed by Kaustubh Shakkarwar, an LLM student, challenging the university’s decision to label his exam submission as largely AI-generated. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri set November 14 as the next hearing date on the matter.

Shakkarwar, a lawyer with a background in AI for litigation and a former law researcher for the Chief Justice of India, submitted his exam answers for “Law and Justice in the Globalizing World” on May 18. However, the university’s Unfair Means Committee later claimed that his answers were “88% AI-generated,” resulting in a failing grade. This decision was upheld by the Controller of Examinations on June 25, prompting Shakkarwar to petition the court.

Through advocate Prabhneer Swani, Shakkarwar contends that

“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.”

Additionally, he asserts that his submission was entirely original, without any AI assistance.

The petition argues that the

“university has not presented even an ‘iota of evidence’ to substantiate the allegation,”

raising questions about the transparency and accuracy of the AI detection methods employed by the institution.

The plea also introduces a broader issue surrounding authorship rights, as Shakkarwar requests a declaration that copyright does not apply to AI-generated content. He argues that if AI is merely a tool, then any work produced should be attributed to the human user as the rightful author. Shakkarwar points to Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which he interprets as suggesting that if he did use AI, the artistic work’s copyright would still lie with him, thus negating any alleged plagiarism.