LLM student moves high court over AI use in exam, university issued notice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 2, 2026, issued a notice to O P Jindal University in response to a plea filed by an LLM student concerning alleged artificial intelligence (AI) use in an examination submission. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh sought a response from the Jindal Global Law School of the university regarding the matter.

The plea was filed by Kaustubh Shakkarwar, an LLM candidate, who is seeking to quash the university’s decision to fail him for allegedly using AI in his submission for the ‘Law and Justice in the Globalising World’ subject. The next hearing for the case has been set for November 14, 2026.

Allegations of AI Use and Procedural Irregularities

Kaustubh Shakkarwar, an engineer-turned-lawyer who practices intellectual property laws and works as a junior standing counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs before the Delhi High Court, contended that the university’s decision to fail him was based on an unsubstantiated accusation. He was accused of making an ’88 percent AI-generated’ submission for his end-term examination, which he appeared for on May 18, 2026. He was next marked ‘fail’ on June 11, 2026.

Shakkarwar’s plea highlights several procedural irregularities, including a breach of natural justice principles. He claims he was not heard by the university’s unfair means committee and was not provided with requested documents. He also stated that the university failed to produce any evidence of the alleged ‘AI generated material’ or a specific rule prohibiting AI use in examinations, despite his requests for such information.

Dismissal of Appeal and Legal Arguments

Following the initial decision, Shakkarwar was informed to appeal before the examination appellate committee. He claims to have lodged a protest seeking details of the ‘means, mode and method’ of the appeal hearing with the controller of examination. However, his appeal was reportedly dismissed after a delay of about four months without him being granted a hearing.

In his plea, Shakkarwar invoked Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, arguing that even if AI was used, the copyright of the artistic work would lie with the petitioner. His plea states, “Section 2(d) (vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957, makes it amply clear that, arguendo (for the sake of argument), if the petitioner even did use AI, the copyright of the artistic work would lie with the petitioner, and thus the allegation of violation of copyright, fails.” He further asserted in his plea that he was “forced by the conduct of the university and having no other efficacious appellate remedy, the petitioner beseeches the quashing of the decision against him by the university.”

Written by Nishit Kumar

Nishit Kumar is a senior EdTech industry leader with over a decade of experience in building and scaling education platforms, shaping their product, content, and growth strategy. At FindMyCollege, Nishit oversees content and editorial strategy, guiding topic selection and content frameworks to ensure accuracy, relevance, and student-first value across the website.

View all posts →

Further reading

• HP High Court result 2026 expected soon for 388 posts after final answer key release
• Allahabad High Court: universities cannot be forced to accept JEST score for PhD admission
• Punjab and Haryana High Court Safai Sewak and Mali final result 2026 declared