The Madras High Court recently underscored the irreplaceable role of qualified educators in law schools, rejecting relief for three law students who failed to meet the mandatory attendance requirements. The Division Bench, comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar, set aside an earlier ruling that had granted these students the ability to write their semester exams despite falling short on attendance. The case citation is Registrar v. B Vadhanan.
AI and Online Classes: No Substitute for Physical Classrooms
The Court highlighted that while artificial intelligence tools and online classes may supplement learning, they cannot replace the traditional classroom experience offered by qualified lecturers. “Regular attendance in physical classrooms imparts more than just knowledge; it fosters self-discipline, punctuality, and positive social behaviors,” the Bench remarked. The judges emphasized that AI, including ChatGPT, may mimic human intelligence but lacks the capacity to teach the ethical pillars of the legal profession, such as integrity and morality. These, they opined, are best learned in a vibrant classroom setting.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stemmed from writ petitions filed by three law students barred from taking their semester exams due to attendance shortages. Initially, a single judge had permitted the students to continue their courses and suggested that the Bar Council of India reassess certain attendance rules. The single-judge order allowed the students to compensate for their attendance during the May and June 2026 vacation through flexible modes.
Rationale for Overturning the Single Judge’s Order
However, the Division Bench overturned this order, reinforcing the Bar Council of India’s stipulation of 70% mandatory attendance, with a possible relaxation to 65% for valid reasons. “The rules are explicit, and any additional relaxation would undermine their purpose,” the Court declared. It further stated that any reconsideration of attendance policies should be the domain of expert bodies like the Bar Council of India, which would need to consider the financial, manpower, and technological implications of such changes.
Implications for Legal Education
The Bench also noted the unfairness that granting attendance exceptions would impose on diligent students who comply with the rules. “Legal education transcends mere monetary gain; it requires a societal and constitutional commitment,” the Court added. The ruling emphasized the importance of maintaining a diverse and engaged classroom environment, which contributes to the holistic development of future legal professionals.
More Read
The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University was represented by Senior Advocate A Thiyagarajan and Advocate M Nallathambi. Advocate SR Raghunathan appeared for the Bar Council of India, while the students were represented by Senior Advocate PM Subramanian, along with Advocates Manoj Sreevalsan, S Bageerathan, and BM Subash.
[Read Judgment]
