ChatGPT can't replace law teachers: Madras HC sets aside relief granted to students in attendance shortage case

The Madras High Court on Wednesday observed that artificial intelligence tools and online classes cannot replace qualified lecturers in physical classrooms, while refusing relief to 3 law students who had fallen short of the mandatory attendance requirement. [Registrar v. B Vadhanan].A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar made the observation while allowing appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University against a single-judge order that had granted relief to the students. It said,"There are certain advantages that stem from regularly attending classes. It goes beyond mere acquisition of knowledge. It instills values of self discipline, punctuality, active classroom engagements, positive social behaviours etc. So online classes cannot be substituted with physical classrooms. Also neither Chat GPT nor any other Al tool can ever be equated with a qualified lecturer.".The Bench added that artificial intelligence may come close to human intelligence, but cannot teach integrity and morality, which it described as ethical pillars of the legal profession.“Such lessons can only be learnt in a vibrant classroom.”.The case arose from writ petitions filed by three law students who were not permitted to write their semester examinations on account of attendance shortage. The students had challenged the University’s decision and sought permission to take their exams.A single judge had partly allowed their petitions on December 17, 2025 and directed the Bar Council of India to revisit Rules 10 and 12 of the Rules of Legal Education. It had also asked the University to reconsider its policy requiring students with attendance shortage to redo the course.The single judge had further permitted the students to continue the course, attend the VIII semester and write the VIII semester examinations. With respect to the VII semester, the students were allowed to make up their balance attendance during vacation in May and June 2026 through flexible modes.The Division Bench, however, set aside the single judge’s order..It noted that Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules mandates 70 per cent attendance. The Court said that attendance can be relaxed only up to 65 per cent if sufficient cause is shown.“So the Rules are clear and any further relaxation would defeat the object of the Rule itself.”The Court said that any reconsideration of attendance norms or teaching methods must be undertaken by expert bodies such as the Bar Council of India. Such an exercise, it added, would require consideration of financial, manpower and technological requirements involved in a systemic transformation.“In the absence of such Rules today, only the present system can be followed. Thereby the Rules being clear, no further condonation can be made.”.The Bench also said that granting relief to a few students despite shortage of attendance would be unfair to students who regularly attended classes and met the legally mandated requirement.It added that law students must realise the value of the seats secured by them, especially in a competitive educational landscape where many students from financially and socially challenging backgrounds may not get courses of their choice."Legal education is not just for making money but traverses beyond that. It requires a commitment to the society and to the Constitution thereby requiring the presence of collective and diverse voices of the students in a classroom," it further said..The University was represented by Senior Advocate A Thiyagarajan with Advocate M Nallathambi.Advocate SR Raghunathan appeared for the Bar Council of India.The Students were represented by Senior Advocate PM Subramanian with Advocates Manoj Sreevalsan, S Bageerathan and BM Subash. .[Read Judgment]