ISAIL Condemns the Abuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Terms and Narratives
The Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ISAIL) expresses grave concern over the growing trend of Indian coaching institutions misusing (arguably abusing) Artificial Intelligence (AI) terms and narratives. We have observed instances where AI is touted as a marketing slogan to attract students and justify higher fees, without any substantive evidence of real AI-based tools or pedagogical benefits being offered. Such misuse not only undermines genuine AI research and innovation but also erodes trust in the responsible use of emerging technologies. Hence, this practice not only undermines the integrity of AI as a transformative technology but also exploits students and parents who trust these institutions for quality education. We firmly reiterate the fundamental and public character of education under the Indian Constitution. Considering key Supreme Court and High Court decisions upholding education as a public duty, private coaching centres cannot escape accountability by claiming purely commercial motives or technological embellishments.
Education as a Public Duty Under the Indian Constitution
Constitutional Mandate
Article 21A declares free and compulsory education for children from ages 6 to 14 as a Fundamental Right. This is integral to the guarantee of right to life under Article 21 and ensures a life of dignity for all citizens.
Directive Principles of State Policy—such as Article 45—further reinforce the State’s responsibility to support education at multiple levels.
Judicial Endorsements
In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court held that right to education flows directly from Article 21.
In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Court clarified that children up to the age of 14 have a fundamental, enforceable right to free and compulsory education, while education beyond 14 remains subject to state resources.
The Calcutta High Court, in a landmark 2021 ruling (Bineeta Patnaik Padhi v. Union of India), affirmed that private unaided educational institutions discharge a public function under the Right to Education Act and are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This aligns with established jurisprudence recognizing education as a public duty under Article 21A of the Constitution. While this principle has been upheld in several cases across India (Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava, Roychan Abraham v. State of UP), it underscores the accountability of all educational institutions—including private coaching centres—toward ethical and transparent practices.
Coaching Institutions as Public Functionaries
Private coaching centres effectively supplement the State’s role in imparting education, especially in the realm of test preparation and advanced learning.
By advertising Artificial Intelligence in educational services, these institutions still perform an essential public duty and remain answerable to constitutional and statutory norms.
Our Concerns
Exaggerated Marketing Claims
Many institutions are using AI terminology as a marketing gimmick, making inflated promises about:
AI’s role in personalized learning
AI’s ability to improve student performance
Use of “cutting-edge AI technology” without specifics
AI-driven success rates and outcomes
These claims are often unsubstantiated and lack transparency, misleading students and parents.
Misrepresentation of AI Capabilities
Institutions frequently overstate what AI can do in educational settings, including:
Claiming AI can fully replace human teachers
Overstating AI’s ability to provide truly personalized learning
Exaggerating AI’s impact on learning outcomes and success rates
Presenting AI as a cure-all for educational challenges
Lack of Transparency
Many coaching centres are not forthcoming about their actual use of AI:
Failing to disclose the extent and limitations of AI in their programs
Not providing clear information on how AI affects student assessment
Obscuring the real impact of AI on learning outcomes
Using AI as a black box without explaining its decision-making process
Ethical Violations
Some institutions are engaging in questionable practices under the guise of AI implementation:
Collecting and analysing student data without proper consent
Using AI tools to monitor students without clear guidelines
Potentially compromising student privacy through opaque technology deliverables
Creating False Hierarchies
The misuse of AI narratives is leading to:
Creation of artificial distinctions between institutions based on claimed AI capabilities
Exacerbation of educational inequality by promoting AI-based programs as superior
Pressure on students and parents to choose institutions based on unverified AI claims
Erosion of Critical Thinking
Overemphasis on AI can lead to:
Reduced focus on developing students’ independent thinking skills
Over-reliance on AI-generated solutions, hindering genuine learning
Neglect of important human aspects of education like creativity and problem-solving
ISAIL’s Call to Action
Transparency and Accountability: Coaching institutions must openly disclose whether and how they utilise AI in their programs. This includes adhering to ethical principles outlined in India’s National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, ensuring clarity in their claims and practices.
No Tokenisation of AI: Institutions should refrain from using AI as a superficial marketing tool. Any AI implementation must be genuine, with a focus on transparency, data protection, and meaningful contributions to educational quality.
Respect for Student Privacy: All AI-driven tools must comply with data protection laws, ensuring that student data is collected, stored, and processed securely. Informed consent should be mandatory before any data is used for analysis or decision-making purposes.
Authentic AI Integration: If AI is claimed as part of the educational process, institutions must provide verifiable evidence of its implementation, supported by qualified experts. The focus should remain on improving learning outcomes rather than leveraging AI for promotional purposes.
Regulatory Oversight: ISAIL advocates strict enforcement by consumer protection authorities and other regulatory bodies to curb misleading advertisements related to AI. Coaching centres must be held accountable for false claims and unethical practices.
Truthful Advertising: Any claims about the use of AI must be backed by clear documentation showing how these tools enhance learning outcomes or improve educational delivery. Misleading or unverifiable statements should be penalized under consumer protection laws.
Detailed Disclosures: Coaching institutes are encouraged to publish detailed information about faculty credentials, course content, and program structure on their websites, aligning with recent regulatory guidelines to ensure transparency for students and parents.
Responsible Data Practices: Institutions must strictly adhere to data protection laws and ethical standards when handling student information. This includes conducting AI-based analysis responsibly, obtaining explicit consent, and implementing regular audits to prevent unauthorized use or exploitation of data.
By implementing these measures, ISAIL seeks to promote ethical practices in the education sector while ensuring that Artificial Intelligence serves as a tool for genuine innovation rather than a means of exploitation or misinformation.
Issued on behalf of the ISAIL Secretariat
Abhivardhan, Chairperson & Managing Trustee
Akash Manwani, Secretary-General
Sanjay M. Rohra, Chief Strategy Advisor
Kapil Naresh, Chief Knowledge Advisor
Mridutpal Bhattacharyya, Chief Policy Advisor
Sanjay Notani, President of the Advisory Council
Bogdan Grigorescu, Vice-President of the Advisory Council
留言