Mapping artificial intelligence adoption, perceptions, and governance in Indian higher education: A scoping review
This scoping review maps the landscape of artificial intelligence in Indian higher education, revealing widespread adoption and generally positive stakeholder perceptions tempered by concerns over integrity and equity, while highlighting a critical gap in comprehensive governance, particularly the stark regulatory asymmetry across medical education sectors and the lack of specific classroom usage guidelines.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine a classroom where the teacher and the students are both learning a new language at the same time, but the teacher has no dictionary and the students are writing essays in a tongue neither of them fully understands. This is the current reality for higher education in India, a vast system serving millions of students across thousands of colleges and universities. The new language is artificial intelligence, specifically the kind of computer program that can write sentences, solve problems, and generate ideas just by reading a prompt. For years, universities have been trying to figure out how to fit these powerful tools into their lessons, exams, and research. The question is no longer whether these tools exist, but how to use them without breaking the rules of learning or misrepresenting the work. In a country as large and diverse as India, where different types of schools are governed by different sets of rules, the answer is not simple. It requires looking at how students and teachers are actually using these tools, what they think about them, and whether the government has any clear instructions on how to proceed.
A team of researchers from Banaras Hindu University set out to map this complex landscape. They did not test a specific software or propose a new law. Instead, they acted as cartographers, gathering every available piece of information they could find to draw a complete picture of the situation. They searched through thousands of academic papers, government reports, and policy documents published between 2018 and mid-2026. After carefully removing duplicates and filtering out studies that did not focus on Indian higher education, they narrowed their list down to 236 sources. These included studies where researchers surveyed students and teachers, papers that discussed ideas about how AI should work, and official documents from the bodies that run India's universities and medical schools. By reading and organizing all this material, the team identified four main themes that describe the current state of affairs.
The first thing the researchers found was that the use of artificial intelligence has exploded, but it happened in a very specific way. Before late 2022, when a popular chatbot became available to the public, the use of AI in Indian universities was mostly controlled by the institutions themselves. Schools would install special software to help students learn or to manage administrative tasks. However, after that date, the story changed completely. The literature shows a massive shift toward students and teachers using these tools on their own, often without the school's permission or guidance. They are using the technology to write essays, summarize long texts, prepare for exams, and even translate materials. This adoption is happening across all fields, from engineering and business to medicine and law. The researchers noted that while the tools are being used everywhere, the most common use is for writing and getting information, driven by individual curiosity rather than a school curriculum.
Despite this rapid uptake, the people using the tools have mixed feelings. Students generally like the technology because it feels helpful and efficient. They appreciate how it can speed up their work and help them understand difficult concepts. However, they also worry about whether the information the computer gives them is actually true, especially when it comes to complex topics or languages other than English. They are also unsure about the rules: they do not know if using the tool counts as misrepresenting the work or if they need to tell their teachers they used it. Teachers share some of this enthusiasm but are more worried about the long-term effects. They fear that students might rely too much on the computer and stop thinking for themselves, or that the quality of learning will drop. A recurring concern for both groups is the "digital divide." Students in big, wealthy cities have much better access to these tools and better support from their schools than students in smaller towns or rural areas. This gap means that while some students are learning how to use AI effectively, others are being left behind or are using it without any help at all.
The most striking finding of the review concerns the rules, or the lack of them. India does not have a single government body that controls all higher education. Instead, different councils manage different types of schools. For example, one council runs technical colleges, another runs general universities, and several others run medical and health science programs. The researchers found that these councils are reacting to the AI revolution at very different speeds. The council for technical education recently partnered with a major AI company to give free access to students, which is a big step forward for access. However, this partnership did not come with a guide on how to use the tool in class or how to handle misrepresentation. The council for general universities is still using old rules about plagiarism that were written before these smart computers existed, trying to fit new problems into old boxes.
The situation is even more uneven in medical education. The council for modern medicine has issued some ethical guidelines for research and started a training program for doctors. The council for biomedical research has also published detailed rules on how to use AI responsibly. But the council that oversees traditional Indian medicine systems, such as Ayurveda, has issued nothing. There are no rules, no training, and no guidance for the thousands of students studying these ancient systems. This creates a strange situation where a student studying modern medicine has some rules to follow, while a student studying traditional medicine has none at all. The researchers pointed out that this gap leaves a huge number of students and teachers operating in a legal and ethical vacuum, unsure of what is allowed and what is not.
The researchers concluded that the speed of adoption is far outpacing the speed of governance. The tools are being used by students and teachers every day, but the rules are still being written, and in some cases, not written at all. The current approach in India has focused on teaching people how to use the technology, which is good, but it has not yet provided clear instructions on how to use it responsibly in a classroom setting. The study suggests that the most urgent need is for specific, practical rules that tell teachers and students exactly how to handle AI in their daily work. This includes clear definitions of what counts as misrepresenting the work, how to disclose when AI is used, and how to ensure that students in smaller towns get the same support as those in big cities. Without these clear guidelines, the gap between what students are doing and what the rules allow will continue to grow, leaving everyone navigating a confusing and uncertain path.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.