The Madras High Court has underscored the irreplaceable role of traditional classroom teaching in legal education, ruling that artificial intelligence tools and online learning platforms cannot stand in for qualified lecturers or the experience of attending classes in person.
The observation came while a Division Bench set aside an earlier order that had granted relief to three law students who were barred from appearing for examinations due to insufficient attendance. The Bench, comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar, sided with the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and reaffirmed the importance of mandatory attendance requirements.
According to the Court, education is not confined to textbooks and examinations. Regular participation in classrooms helps students cultivate discipline, punctuality, social interaction, and professional conduct—qualities that cannot be replicated through virtual instruction or AI-driven tools.
The judges noted that while artificial intelligence may process information at impressive levels, it cannot impart values such as integrity, ethics, and moral responsibility, all of which are fundamental to the legal profession. Such lessons, the Court observed, emerge from direct engagement between teachers and students within a dynamic academic environment.
The dispute originated when three law students challenged the University’s decision preventing them from writing semester examinations because they had failed to meet attendance requirements. They sought judicial intervention to continue their studies and sit for the examinations.
Earlier, a single-judge Bench had granted partial relief. The order allowed the students to proceed with subsequent semesters and take examinations while also suggesting that legal education regulations and attendance-related policies be revisited. It additionally permitted the students to compensate for attendance shortages through alternative arrangements during vacation periods.
The appellate Bench, however, found no basis for extending such concessions. Referring to the Bar Council of India’s Rules of Legal Education, the Court pointed out that a minimum attendance threshold of 70 percent is mandatory, with relaxation available only up to 65 percent in exceptional circumstances supported by valid reasons.
The judges stressed that permitting attendance waivers beyond the limits prescribed in the rules would undermine the very purpose of those regulations.
The Court further observed that any substantial shift toward alternative teaching models or revisions to attendance norms must come from expert regulatory bodies. Such decisions, it said, involve broader considerations including infrastructure, technology, staffing, and financial implications, making them matters of policy rather than judicial discretion.
It also warned that granting special treatment to students who fail to meet attendance requirements would be unfair to those who consistently attend classes and comply with academic regulations.
Highlighting the broader purpose of legal education, the Bench remarked that studying law is not merely a pathway to financial success. It carries a responsibility toward society and constitutional values. Exposure to diverse viewpoints and collective learning in a classroom, the Court said, remains an essential part of shaping future legal professionals.
Consequently, the appeals filed by the University were allowed and the relief earlier granted to the students was set aside.
