Law

In a significant ruling that highlights the continuing importance of physical classrooms in higher education, the Madras High Court has held that artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT cannot substitute the role of qualified teachers in imparting knowledge, ethics and professional values to students.

The judgment came while the court was hearing a case related to attendance requirements for law students and has reignited the debate on the role of technology in education, particularly as institutions increasingly adopt digital learning platforms.

A division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar observed that while technological advancements and online learning resources can support education, they cannot replace the dynamic and interactive environment of a classroom. The judges stressed that professional education, especially legal studies, involves much more than the transfer of academic information.

According to the court, qualified lecturers play a crucial role in shaping students' character, integrity, morality and professional ethics—qualities that cannot be effectively taught through artificial intelligence systems or virtual platforms alone. The bench noted that classroom discussions, debates and exchanges of diverse viewpoints help students develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of constitutional values and social responsibilities.

"Artificial intelligence tools may assist learning, but they cannot replicate the human interaction and mentorship essential to legal education," the court observed while underscoring the importance of regular classroom engagement.

The ruling came in the context of a dispute over attendance requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The court upheld Rule 12 of the BCI Legal Education Rules, which mandates a minimum attendance of 70 per cent for law students. The rules permit relaxation up to 65 per cent only under exceptional circumstances.

The division bench set aside an earlier order of a single judge that had allowed students with significantly lower attendance to appear for examinations. The court maintained that existing regulations must be strictly followed unless they are formally amended by the competent authority.

The case involved three students of Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University whose attendance records ranged between 37 per cent and 46 per cent. Due to inadequate attendance, the university had barred them from appearing in semester examinations and directed them to repeat the academic year.

Earlier, a single judge had granted relief to the students and recommended that the Bar Council reconsider its attendance norms in light of changing educational practices. However, the university challenged the order before the division bench, arguing that attendance regulations are essential to maintaining academic standards and professional discipline.

Allowing the university's appeal, the High Court reinstated the original attendance requirements and emphasised that students who regularly attend classes should not be placed at a disadvantage compared to those who fail to meet prescribed academic obligations.

The judgment arrives at a time when the issue of mandatory attendance is under national scrutiny. The Supreme Court is currently examining the broader question of attendance requirements in higher education after staying a Delhi High Court order that had restrained institutions from debarring students from examinations on the basis of low attendance.

Legal experts believe the Madras High Court's decision could influence the ongoing national debate by reinforcing the view that attendance remains a critical component of professional education. The ruling underscores the judiciary's recognition that while technology can enhance learning, the classroom continues to be central to developing competent, ethical and socially responsible professionals.

As educational institutions increasingly integrate artificial intelligence into teaching and learning processes, the judgment serves as a reminder that technology is best viewed as a supplement rather than a replacement for human educators and face-to-face academic engagement.

A representation seeking the postponement of the NEET UG 2026 re-examination, scheduled for June 21, has been submitted on behalf of 1,467 aspirants by Supreme Court advocate Vineet Jindal. The plea argues that students should not be made to suffer the consequences of circumstances beyond their control.

Sharing details of the representation on social media platform X, Jindal stated that aspirants are facing significant uncertainty, anxiety, and disruption due to the developments surrounding the examination.

According to the representation, many candidates who performed well in the original examination feel unfairly affected, as they are being required to reappear despite having no connection to the alleged irregularities that led to the re-test.

The plea further notes that a large number of students had already concluded their preparation cycle and were preparing for the next stages of the admission process, including counselling and seat allocation. The requirement to appear for another examination at short notice has reportedly placed them under renewed academic and psychological pressure.

The representation highlights concerns raised by students regarding increased stress levels, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and difficulties concentrating as they resume preparation for the examination.

Special attention has also been drawn to candidates from rural and remote regions, who may face logistical challenges related to travel, accommodation, and other arrangements required to appear for the re-examination.

Seeking relief for the affected aspirants, Jindal has requested that the examination be postponed by at least one month and that a revised schedule be announced with sufficient advance notice to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for all candidates.

The National Testing Agency is currently scheduled to conduct the NEET UG 2026 re-examination on June 21, with test centres planned across 551 cities in India and 14 cities abroad.

The matter has added another dimension to the ongoing debate over maintaining examination integrity while safeguarding the interests and mental well-being of students affected by disruptions in the admission process.

Over 22,000 applicants compete for 4,000 seats across School of Excellence in Law, government law colleges, and government quota seats in private institutions; online counselling to follow.

The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University is expected to release the merit list for admissions to its five-year integrated law programmes later this week, paving the way for online counselling and seat allotment for the 2026-27 academic session.

University officials said the rank list is being prepared based on candidates' aggregate scores in four Class XII subjects, excluding languages. Following the publication of the merit list, allotment orders will be issued and certificate verification is expected to be completed by the fourth week of June.

The admissions process covers the prestigious School of Excellence in Law (SOEL), government law colleges across Tamil Nadu, and government quota seats in private law colleges.

The School of Excellence in Law has attracted significant interest this year, receiving around 6,700 applications for its 600 seats. The institution offers integrated honours programmes including BA LLB, BCom LLB, BBA LLB and BCA LLB.

To be eligible for admission to the School of Excellence in Law, general category candidates must have secured a minimum of 70 per cent marks in Class XII examinations, while candidates belonging to SC and ST categories require at least 60 per cent.

Meanwhile, government law colleges and government quota seats in private law colleges have received nearly 16,000 applications for a total of 3,400 seats, including 2,503 seats in government law colleges and 897 government quota seats in private institutions.

For these colleges, the minimum eligibility requirement is 45 per cent marks in Class XII for general category candidates and 40 per cent for SC and ST applicants.

University officials noted that application numbers remain largely consistent with previous years, reflecting sustained demand for legal education in the state.

The university had invited applications between May 18 and June 5. Officials have also confirmed that notifications for admissions to three-year LLB programmes and postgraduate LLM courses will be announced separately at a later date.

All counselling and admission-related procedures for the integrated law programmes will be conducted online.

Thousands of CBSE students in Gulf countries face uncertainty as pending Class 12 improvement results threaten university admissions; Centre explores a region-wide solution.

The Supreme Court has granted the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) additional time to formulate a policy for students in West Asia whose Class 12 results remain pending following examination disruptions caused by regional conflict.

The matter came up for hearing on June 13 in a petition filed by Pransu Jigarkumar Patel, a Saudi Arabia-based student whose Class 12 improvement examination result has not yet been declared. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Union government is examining the issue comprehensively and considering a broader policy framework that could apply to all similarly affected students across Gulf countries.

Taking note of the government's submission, the Supreme Court agreed to defer the matter and scheduled the next hearing for June 22, allowing CBSE and the Centre time to finalise their approach.

The delay has created significant anxiety among students seeking admission to universities in India and abroad. Many affected candidates have found their results marked as “Result Later,” leaving them uncertain about their final scores at a crucial stage in the admission cycle. Several universities have continued with admissions despite the pending results, forcing students to make difficult decisions about accepting existing offers or waiting for revised marks.

The issue stems from the cancellation of certain CBSE Class 12 examinations in Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates earlier this year amid escalating tensions involving Iran, Israel and the United States. To address the disruption, CBSE introduced a special assessment scheme on March 27 under which regular students received marks based on school assessments and periodic examinations.

However, private candidates faced unique challenges because many lacked school-based academic records that could be used for alternative evaluation. As a result, some students were left without declared results, leading to legal intervention.

CBSE has cited difficulties in assessing private candidates fairly under the existing framework, while the Centre has indicated that a uniform policy may be developed to protect the academic interests of all affected students.

The outcome of the case is expected to have implications not only for students in West Asia but also for the broader debate on how examination authorities respond to disruptions caused by international crises and emergencies.

New Delhi: The Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) new three-language policy for Class 9 students has reached the Supreme Court, with a fresh legal challenge questioning its constitutional validity and educational rationale.

The petition has been filed by educationist and NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) leader Fauzia Khan, who has argued that the policy is arbitrary, impractical and inconsistent with the spirit of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

What the Petition Challenges

The plea targets a CBSE circular issued on May 15, which mandates that Class 9 students study three languages from July 1 onwards, with at least two Indian languages.

According to the petition, the rule effectively forces schools in non-Hindi-speaking states to introduce Hindi, while institutions in northern states may be pushed toward Sanskrit, without adequate academic justification or resources.

The petitioner also highlighted a key contradiction: while CBSE acknowledges a shortage of qualified language teachers, it still proceeds with mandatory implementation.

Foreign Language as Fourth Option Only

Under the new framework, students may opt for a foreign language only as a fourth subject, provided they have already studied two Indian languages.

The policy aligns with NEP 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023, both of which promote multilingual learning and exposure to Indian languages.

Concerns Over Feasibility and Equity

The petition argues that the mandate could disproportionately affect students in linguistically diverse states, particularly in South India, where concerns over compulsory Hindi instruction have historically triggered political and educational debates.

It further claims that the policy may not be implementable in many schools due to a lack of trained teachers, infrastructure and learning materials.

Supreme Court Already Seized of Matter

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice on a similar petition challenging the CBSE’s language policy on May 27, indicating that the issue is already under judicial consideration.

With the latest plea, the legal scrutiny over the three-language formula is expected to intensify in the coming weeks.

CBSE’s Stand Through Policy Alignment

CBSE has defended the policy as part of its broader alignment with NEP 2020 and NCF-SE 2023, which emphasize multilingual proficiency as a key educational goal.

The board maintains that learning multiple languages enhances cognitive development and cultural understanding among students.

A Wider Debate on Language and Education

The case has reignited a long-standing national debate over language policy in school education, balancing constitutional diversity with national curriculum standardisation.

As the matter progresses in the Supreme Court, the outcome could have significant implications for how languages are taught across India’s school system, particularly in CBSE-affiliated institutions.

Patna: In a dramatic twist to the high-profile coaching institute clash that rocked Patna, a local court has granted interim protection from arrest to popular educator Khan Sir while denying bail to his rival, Gyan Bindu coaching director Raushan Anand.

The contrasting decisions have intensified an already bitter feud between two of the city's prominent coaching figures, whose rivalry allegedly spiraled into violence, vandalism and gunfire allegations earlier this month.

Khan Sir Gets Temporary Protection

Principal District and Sessions Judge Rupesh Deo directed that no coercive action be taken against Faisal Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, until the next hearing in the June 2 firing case linked to Khan Global Studies (KGS).

The court, however, instructed Khan Sir to cooperate fully with investigators while it examines the case diary and details regarding his criminal antecedents.

The educator's legal team welcomed the order, calling it a significant relief. Prosecutors had opposed the plea, citing statements allegedly made by one of the arrested security guards that purportedly linked Khan Sir to the firing incident.

Rival Raushan Anand Remains Behind Bars

While Khan Sir secured temporary relief, the court rejected the regular bail application of Raushan Anand, director of Gyan Bindu GS Academy.

Anand was arrested after Khan Sir accused him of masterminding the attack outside the coaching institute. He and two associates have remained in judicial custody since June 3.

The bail rejection has triggered protests among some students and supporters, who claim the allegations are politically motivated and lack evidence.

Coaching Rivalry Turns Violent

According to investigators, the violence was rooted in a long-running rivalry between Khan Global Studies and Gyan Bindu GS Academy.

The June 2 incident reportedly involved vandalism, physical confrontations and allegations of gunfire outside Khan Global Studies in Patna.

Police have cited CCTV footage that allegedly shows property damage and assaults during the clash. Separate video footage is also said to show security personnel associated with Khan Global Studies firing weapons during the incident.

Two security guards were subsequently arrested, and the firearms allegedly used have been sent for forensic examination.

Both Sides Trade Blame

The case has become increasingly complex as both camps continue to accuse each other of orchestrating the violence.

Khan Sir maintains that the attack was planned by rivals, while the opposing side has rejected those claims and questioned the allegations against Anand.

Investigators are now relying on CCTV footage, witness statements and forensic reports to establish the sequence of events.

What Happens Next?

The court has sought the complete case diary and details of criminal records, if any, before taking a final view on Khan Sir's anticipatory bail plea.

Multiple hearings are scheduled later this month, with the court expected to examine fresh evidence and hear detailed arguments from both sides.

Until then, Khan Sir remains protected from arrest, while Raushan Anand continues in judicial custody, ensuring that one of Bihar's most talked-about coaching controversies remains far from over.