AI tools like ChatGPT cannot replace qualified teachers, says Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT, cannot be equated with qualified teachers. Delivering a judgment on the importance of classroom learning, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar stated that while AI may approximate human intelligence, it cannot impart the integrity and morality essential to the legal profession—values that emerge only through vibrant classroom interactions.
The court made these remarks while setting aside a single judge's order that had permitted three government law college students, who lacked the mandated 65% attendance, to sit for examinations after attending special summer classes. The single judge's intervention had spared them from losing an academic year. However, the Division Bench, allowing three writ appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, held that mandatory attendance norms serve a vital purpose and must be enforced uniformly.
The judges emphasised that students who regularly attend classes and fulfil statutory requirements should not feel that differential treatment is accorded to a few. "In a highly competitive educational landscape," the Bench noted, "it is only after extreme hard work that students secure a seat through merit. Many from financially and socially challenging backgrounds end up taking alternate courses when denied their preferred choice. Therefore, students must realise the value of the seat they hold." The court added that this principle applies with greater force to legal education, which directly connects learners to legal and human rights, enabling them to become voices for the voiceless.
Justice Subramaniam, authoring the judgment, wrote that classrooms are the breeding ground for legal ideas and novelty. "It is from classroom debates and dynamic social discussions that legal ideas and novelty emanate. Classrooms provide a platform for students to debate and engage in productive discussions, thereby creating a generation of energetic and vibrant legal professionals." The court further noted that legal education is not merely a means to earn money; it demands commitment to society and the Constitution, requiring the presence of collective and diverse voices in a classroom.
Addressing the role of online learning, the Bench stated that while online classes can serve as an avenue when necessity arises, they cannot permanently substitute physical learning. "There are certain advantages that stem from regularly attending classes. It goes beyond mere acquisition of knowledge. It instils values of self-discipline, punctuality, active classroom engagements, and positive social behaviours. So online classes cannot be substituted with physical classrooms," the judgment read.
The ruling reinforces the legal and constitutional perspective that the holistic development of law students necessitates direct human mentorship and peer interaction, which AI tools, despite their growing sophistication, are unable to replicate.