Assistance Not Substitution: Rethinking Legal Pedagogy

Team name: O.P. Jindal Global University, India

Use of AI tools :

Which tool(s) did you use?
We used Claude and ChatGPT.

• For what purpose(s)?
  Claude was used to improve the representation, organisation, and clarity of information in the policy document. ChatGPT was used to refine phrasing, improve section flow, structure arguments, and make the language more policy-oriented and reader-friendly.

  How did these tools support your work?
  These tools supported the drafting and editing process by helping us organise ideas more clearly, reduce repetition, improve transitions between sections, and present our policy recommendations in a more coherent format. However, the core research question, policy direction, arguments, stakeholder analysis, and final recommendations were developed through team discussions, professor inputs, literature review, and our own critical assessment of the issue.

External feedback & contributions :

• Prof. Sakham Shukla – International Insolvency / IBC Professor – Feedback on AI-driven cognitive atrophy, decline in intellectual engagement, and preserving independent thinking in legal education.

• Prof. Akmal Handi Ansari – International Trade Law Professor – Feedback on AI as an enabler, not a substitute, with emphasis on source engagement, active learning, and student-led analysis.

• Prof. Vandana Gyanchandani – International Economics / AI and Tech Regulation Professor – Mentoring on responsible AI integration, separate student/faculty training, AI as an assistant, and institutional safeguards.

• Prof. Arpan Acharya – Administrative Law / Constitutional Law / Jurisprudence Professor – Comments on doctrinal, interpretive, and subject-specific concerns in legal education.

• Prof. Aneeshaa Dev – Technology Regulation Law Professor – Feedback on text engagement, phase-wise implementation, and subject-wise differentiation in AI policy design.

• Prof. Mary Sabina Peters – Professor – Feedback and discussion during the policy development process.

• Mr. Manav Seksaria – Quantum Computing Researcher, IIT Madras – Technical guidance on AI scope for law students, deliverable design, and closed-book/proctored assessment safeguards.

• Mr. Satyam Singh – Senior AI Consultant, Artefact – Mentoring on AI deployment in education and administration, automation of manual work, and the concept of meta-knowledge.

• Mr. Yashvardhan Tomar – Researcher, Caltech – Feedback on responsible versus abusive AI use, and guidance on critically addressing the adverse effects of AI adoption in higher education.

Initial contribution: Diminishing Practicality and Professionality from LL.B to a Theoretical Academic Programme

Final contribution: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bjm1D43mou0noKIF1Ns8JcgKhFAlqcCtbnruRrVi0yE/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0#heading

Video pitch

Please provide a link to your 1-minute video pitch presenting your work: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HZBvRY3UYBh7xuR9i38tJ9J6J6eCz4Fn/view

Transcript: As already stated in our Phase 1 submission, our policy framework responds to the problem of intellectual atrophy, where excessive dependence on AI gradually weakens independent legal reasoning and analysis.

Therefore, our central research question is: How can critical thinking be included and developed within AI-impacted legal pedagogy?

Our methodology to address this problem is two-tiered.

First, we propose a phase-wise categorisation within a five-year law school programme. This begins with a foundational phase where students have no AI exposure in assessed work. It then moves towards supervised AI integration, and finally to a third phase focused on critique, evaluation, and improvement of AI outputs.

Second, we propose a subject-wise categorisation. This divides law school subjects into statutory law subjects, RPG subjects, and interdisciplinary subjects, with separate AI policies tailored to the nature and learning objectives of each category.

Together, these two approaches function as our mitigation strategy against intellectual atrophy. They allow legal education to preserve the benefits of AI-assisted learning while ensuring that critical thinking, independent reasoning, and human judgment remain central to legal pedagogy.

The detailed policy essentials are included in the document itself.

Thank you.