Universities need new AI, evaluation policies: Jindal Global Law School student who sued over results

After a detection tool flagged 88% of his exam as AI-generated, Kaustubh Shakkarwar sued Jindal Global Law School over allegations of plagiarism and sought rules for AI in academia.

Kaustubh Shakkarwar, Advocate & LLM student at Jindal Global Law School

Sheena Sachdeva | December 30, 2024 | 05:30 PM IST

NEW DELHI: In May 2024, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, LLM student at Jindal Global Law School, appeared for an end-term exam for the paper on “Law and Justice in a Globalising World”. His programme was in blended-learning mode – a mix of online and in-person classes – and he took the assessment as a “take-home exam”. A few weeks later, his answers had been referred to an internal “Unfair Means Committee” (UMC); a tool had said 88% of his answers were AI-generated.

This would lead to one of the first lawsuits related to the use of artificial intelligence in academia in India. That said, no judicial discourse on AI in universities would emerge from it. While originally failing, Shakkarwar took a re-exam in August – months before he filed the lawsuit – and cleared it. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ultimately dismissed the case since he had already cleared.

From the perspective of OP Jindal Global University – of which JGLS is a unit – the matter ended with the re-exam and the court order. From Shakkarwar’s perspective, the issue is more complex. He denies using AI to write his exam and challenges the findings of the plagiarism and AI detection tool, Turnitin, which reported the 88% AI content. The UMC inquiry and the allegation of cheating rankle but, at the same time, he maintains that universities will have to contend with AI sooner or later. To get to the bottom of the issue with his answers and also because others were in the same boat as him, he sued the university in November.

“Experts are saying that a debate has started in this case regarding the usage of artificial intelligence tools. While the world and AI technology are moving super fast, AI will be part of our lives in every aspect, and academia will be a part of it. But for universities to say that AI cannot be used in academia, is a very archaic view,” said the 30 year-old.

Turnitin and AI in education: No guidelines

Shakkarwar is from Aurangabad, Maharashtra, and a graduate of the College of Engineering, Pune where, he alleges, his guide passed off the student’s work as his own. “This incident reminded me to take action now which I couldn’t during my undergraduate days. I faced injustice as an engineer and didn't speak against it. However, now, I want my conscience to be clear, especially as a practising lawyer,” he said.

He pointed out that existing policies governing matters of plagiarism do not cover AI. “There are no proper guidelines that say students cannot use AI tools,” he said. The University Grant Commission Regulations 2018 on Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions is silent on AI.

Shakkarwar sought the university policy documents based on which the result or usage of AI was decided as plagiarism. The UMC hearing was in June. The Turnitin report was a major factor. Shakkarwar submitted a “defence memo” but allegedly did not get a response on it.

“The software report itself has a disclaimer that states the report from it cannot be used to have any disciplinary action against a student,” he said.

He demanded to see any policy formalising the adoption of Turnitin software as a plagiarism checker. Shakkarwar alleges he wasn’t given a chance to make his case or shows what exactly he was being charged with.

“The principle of strict liability, mere possession of prohibited materials is enough to constitute a violation of Section 29 of First Ordinance of OP Jindal Global University,” said an email to Shakkarwar from the controller of examinations. The problem: the student couldn’t find Section 29 anywhere.

Also read Time for the ‘wiki-thesis’: Rethinking research assessments in the age of AI writing

The JGLS’ Academic Rulebook: Course Curriculum and Descriptions has a Section 29 which addresses the use of “dishonest or unfair means” in exams but Shakkarwar couldn’t locate the section in the university’s first ordinances or statutes on which the rules are based.

“During my research, I found that this Section wasn't mentioned anywhere in the public domain and nor was it mentioned in any statement, under which I was found guilty,” he said. Careers360 separately sought a copy from the university but wasn’t given one.

After being denied a chance to appeal, Shakkarwar sued.

In a media statement, OP Jindal University stated: “The petitioner, Kaustubh Shakkarwar, is enrolled as a student in the LLM programme specialising in Intellectual Property and Technology Law at Jindal Global Law School. He appeared for his end-term examination in the course titled ‘Law and Justice in a Globalizing World’. When the submission was put through Turnitin, the Turnitin report highlighted 88% AI-generated content in his end-term submission for this course. The student’s conduct was reported to the Unfair Means Committee of the University. Given the high percentage of AI-generated content which challenges the sanctity and integrity of the examinations, he failed this examination in terms of UGC Anti-plagiarism Regulations, 2018. He was given a re-sit opportunity, which he undertook and later passed the course.”

Support from student community

After the semester results were declared for Shakkarwar’s LLM class, there was hue and cry in the class Whatsapp group. Many had failed. “After I noticed many students in our class' WhatsApp community faced a similar problem, I realised that I was not the only one. A significant number of people were voicing the same issue of take-home written examinations termed plagiarised for numerous students.” This gave him strength to contest the university’s decision, he said.

After Shakkarwar went to court against the university, he received messages of support from across the legal community and students of India. “I've got so many messages on my phone, Linkedin, etc. from students from Jindal and other universities, random people acknowledging the guts and efforts to go against your university,” he added.

As a practising lawyer, Shakkarwar has faith in judicial justice. “Day in and day out, I push my clients to pursue their issues in the court. So, a large part of my job apart from going to court, presenting arguments, and drafting, is to also instill confidence in my client because I have faith in the courts. And if I am saying this to my client, I need to do it for myself as well, for a clear conscience, and set an example for others.,” he stated.

Use of AI tools in academia

Shakkarwar’s case received widespread coverage but the issue of use of AI tools in academia remains unaddressed.

“With the advent of AI tools, academia cannot say that they will not change their rules and parameters. It's not sustainable,” he said.

According to an article on Springer, institutions like Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford University, University of California Berkeley and many others, have framed guidelines on the use of AI tools as a “learning aid” but prohibit directly copying text generated by any AI tool.

Shakkarwar added that universities cannot restrain students from using AI because after graduating, they will eventually use it for work. “There is an inherent need for universities to change their evaluation patterns,” he added. While Shakkarwar's petition demanded rules on the usage of AI in the university, the matter fizzled out long before it got to that point.

“This case was an opportunity both for universities and students to deal with the issue of AI in examinations. But it didn't go to that extent because the university took a diplomatic way out of answering difficult questions,” he said.

Follow us for the latest education news on colleges and universities, admission, courses, exams, research, education policies, study abroad and more..

To get in touch, write to us at news@careers360.com.