TECHNO-CONSTITUTIONAL PLURALISM IN INDIAN LEGAL EDUCATION: INTEGRATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIAN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

Author Name: 1. Dr. Parul Pareek

Volume/Issue: 07/03

Country: India

DOI NO.: 08.2020-25662434 DOI Link: https://doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-99755393/UIJIR

Affiliation:

1. Independent Legal Researcher, India

ABSTRACT

Indian legal education is being reshaped by two linked pressures: the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in legal practice and pedagogy, and the renewed demand to decolonise curricula through engagement with Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). This article argues that these pressures should not be treated as separate reform agendas. Both concern the production, validation, and institutional control of legal knowledge. To explain their relationship, the article proposes techno-constitutional pluralism, a normative framework for legal education that aligns AI literacy, constitutional morality, epistemic diversity, academic freedom, and institutional equality. The framework is distinct from constitutional pluralism and digital constitutionalism because its primary site of analysis is the law school as an institution of legal knowledge production. Anchored in Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, and 39A of the Constitution of India, and read alongside the National Education Policy 2020, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and UNESCO’s guidance on generative AI in education and research, the framework treats technological competence, constitutional discipline, and epistemic diversity as mutually reinforcing rather than competing goals. The article makes four claims. First, techno-constitutional pluralism is best understood as a framework for legal education rather than as a theory of state power or platform governance. Second, decolonisation in legal education should be understood as a critical project directed at curriculum, language, method, institutional design, and knowledge validation. Third, IKS, especially Nyaya and Mimamsa, can serve as critical resources for evaluating inference, interpretation, and explanation in AI-mediated legal pedagogy, provided they are used critically rather than symbolically. Fourth, the framework exposes structural constraints, including symbolic inclusion, institutional inequality, academic closure, faculty capacity gaps, and data dependency, that must be addressed if reform is to be meaningful.

Key words: Indian legal education is being reshaped by two linked pressures: the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in legal practice and pedagogy, and the renewed demand to decolonise curricula through engagement with Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). This article argues that these pressures should not be treated as separate reform agendas. Both concern the production, validation, and institutional control of legal knowledge. To explain their relationship, the article proposes techno-constitutional pluralism, a normative framework for legal education that aligns AI literacy, constitutional morality, epistemic diversity, academic freedom, and institutional equality. The framework is distinct from constitutional pluralism and digital constitutionalism because its primary site of analysis is the law school as an institution of legal knowledge production. Anchored in Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, and 39A of the Constitution of India, and read alongside the National Education Policy 2020, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and UNESCO’s guidance on generative AI in education and research, the framework treats technological competence, constitutional discipline, and epistemic diversity as mutually reinforcing rather than competing goals. The article makes four claims. First, techno-constitutional pluralism is best understood as a framework for legal education rather than as a theory of state power or platform governance. Second, decolonisation in legal education should be understood as a critical project directed at curriculum, language, method, institutional design, and knowledge validation. Third, IKS, especially Nyaya and Mimamsa, can serve as critical resources for evaluating inference, interpretation, and explanation in AI-mediated legal pedagogy, provided they are used critically rather than symbolically. Fourth, the framework exposes structural constraints, including symbolic inclusion, institutional inequality, academic closure, faculty capacity gaps, and data dependency, that must be addressed if reform is to be meaningful.