AI can’t replace teacher—Madras HC backs classroom learning as minimum attendance debate reaches SC

HC went on to add that although online classes can provide an avenue for learning when the need arises, it cannot be a substitute for physical mode of learning.

Illustration: Sonali Dub/ ThePrint

New Delhi: Chat-GPT or any other Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool can never be equated with a qualified lecturer, and online classrooms cannot be a substitute for physical classrooms, the Madras High Court ruled Wednesday while denying relief to three law students who fell short of the minimum required attendance at the state-run Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University in Chennai.

Significantly, the ruling comes as the minimum attendance requirement debate has reached the Supreme Court. 

In May, this year, the Supreme Court had stayed the November 2025 order of the Delhi High Court which prohibited law colleges and universities from barring students from appearing in exams for failing to meet the minimum attendance requirement. 

Acting on a batch of appeals by three law students, a two-judge bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthil Kumar set aside an order passed by a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court on 17 December, last year. The single-judge bench had granted relief to the law students, and asked the University to reconsider its policy under which students with low attendance were required to redo the course.

In turn, the registrar of the law university, had challenged the 17 December 2025 order before the two-judge bench of the High Court, which said that, “Artificial intelligence can come as closer to human intelligence but cannot teach the aspects of integrity and morality that are also ethical pillars of legal professions. Such lessons can only be learnt in a vibrant classroom.”

Equality, under Article 14 of the Constitution, is an important feature of our democracy, the two-judge bench said while adding that students who attended classes regularly should not be made to feel as if differential treatment is being given to only a select few.

In a highly competitive educational landscape, it is only after extreme hard work put in by students that they are able to secure a seat through merit in a college of their choice, the High Court said while adding that students must realise the value of the seat secured by them.

Studying law is a valuable educational stream, which directly connects students with legal and human rights in society, thereby giving them an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless, the High Court also said while adding legal education transcends beyond making money.

It also noted that legal education requires commitment to the Constitution, and requires collective and diverse voices of students in the classroom. “It is from classroom debates and dynamic social discussions that legal ideas and novelty emanate,” it said in its ruling Wednesday.

The High Court went on to add that although online classes can provide an avenue for learning when the need arises, it cannot be a substitute for physical mode of learning. There are certain advantages that stem from regularly attending classes. It goes beyond mere acquisition of knowledge, and instills values of self discipline, punctuality, active classroom engagements and positive social behaviours, the bench said.

Minimum attendance case

The case revolved around three students who could not meet the minimum attendance requirements.

Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules mandates a minimum attendance requirement of 70 percent attendance , failing which the student concerned shall not be allowed to take the end-of-semester test. Under the Rules, a 5 percent relaxation can be given, which allows students with even 65 percent attendance, to sit for the exams, provided they are given this grace.

However, in December, last year, the single-judge bench had said there is a need to reconsider this rule. Setting aside this direction, the High Court has now ruled that revising such BCI rules was a task which could only be carried out by the Bar Council of India and other expert bodies, after looking at a host of factors like manpower and technological necessity.

This is what made the students approach the Madras High Court last year, seeking permission to write their semester exams and to set aside the college’s decision to make them repeat the year.

(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)