I’m a distance-mode MA student at Jamia Millia Islamia (CDOE). After exam results, I noticed what I believe is serious undervaluation across multiple papers not small discrepancies, but patterns that didn’t match the quality, structure, and completeness of my answers.
So I did what you’re supposed to do:
- I formally raised a grievance about evaluation
- asked for transparency in marking
- questioned whether the evaluation process was consistent and fair
- requested re-evaluation / meaningful upward correction, not token increases
In my emails, I also pushed harder than usual because:
- some papers showed unexpectedly low scores despite strong preparation
- there seemed to be possible grade compression / capping patterns ( common in central university to show alleged rigour and flex difficulty)
- I asked for clarity on how answers were assessed and where marks were deducted
Then things escalated.
Instead of a detailed academic response (like script review, marking breakdown, or re-evaluation pathway), I received a show-cause notice.
The allegation:
My answer sheets are “full of answers written with the help of Artificial Intelligence tools.”
Now here’s the critical part:
These were handwritten exam scripts, written in an online proctored exam environment.
So the situation has now become:
I questioned evaluation →
asked for transparency →
pushed for substantial correction →
and now I’m facing an AI misconduct allegation.
Other things that concern me:
- No evidence shared: no report, no flagged answers, no explanation
- No methodology disclosed: how do you detect AI in handwriting?
- No issue raised during exams: nothing flagged by invigilators at the time ( now they have sent notice when my all semesters exams over)
- Sudden escalation: only after grievance emails to VC dean escalated it
- Physical appearance demanded: despite being a distance/online student outside Delhi
I’m trying to be careful with language, but the sequence of events raises serious questions about whether this is:
- a genuine academic finding, or
- a reaction to me challenging the evaluation process
This is no longer just about marks.
This is about being labelled as having used unfair means without disclosed proof, which has reputational consequences.
From what I understand, even globally:
- AI detection is unreliable even for typed text
- false positives are common
- and I haven’t seen credible cases of handwritten, proctored scripts being classified as AI-generated
At this point, I’m considering:
- escalating through UGC grievance mechanisms
- asking formally for full disclosure of the committee report and evidence ( not responded 2 months )
- exploring legal options (writ petition) if due process isn’t followed
I’m open to being wrong if there is actual evidence.
But right now, I’ve been accused without seeing any.
Would appreciate:
- anyone who has faced something similar
- legal or academic insights
- how such cases are usually handled in universities
Because right now, it feels like I asked for fair evaluation and ended up being accused of something I don’t even understand how they are proving.