The Madras High Court has asserted that online classes cannot replace the physical mode of learning, and artificial intelligence tools can never be equated with qualified teachers. A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that while AI can approach human intelligence, it cannot teach integrity and morality.
Court's Observation on Attendance Rules
The bench made this observation on Wednesday while allowing an appeal by Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University against a single judge order. The earlier order had permitted students without the mandatory 70% attendance to appear for semester exams and directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to revisit attendance rules, allowing flexible modes to fulfill the requirement.
Benefits of Physical Classrooms
Dismissing the single judge's view, the division bench stated: "Online classes provide an avenue for learning when need arises, but it cannot be a substitute for physical mode of learning." The court highlighted that regular attendance instills values such as self-discipline, punctuality, active classroom engagement, and positive social behaviors, which go beyond mere knowledge acquisition.
AI vs. Qualified Teachers
The judges added that neither ChatGPT nor any other AI tool can ever replace a qualified lecturer. "Artificial intelligence cannot teach integrity and morality that are also ethical pillars of legal professions," they noted, emphasizing that such lessons are only possible in a vibrant classroom environment.
Role of Legal Education
The court remarked that legal education is not solely for earning money but extends beyond that. It requires a commitment to society and the Constitution, necessitating the presence of diverse student voices in a classroom. The bench concluded that classroom debates and dynamic social discussions are the sources from which legal ideas and novelty emerge, shaping a generation of energetic and vibrant legal professionals.
