Why I Replaced a Conventional Assessment Method with a Corporate Boardroom Simulation Exercise

A recent conversation with Dr. Neha Singh, Assistant Professor (Selection Grade) reminded me of a simple yet profound truth about teaching: there is no universal formula for learning.

Teaching is an art. And like every art, it evolves with experience.

This is something both I and Dr. Neha agreed upon. What inspires one student may leave another disengaged. As educators, our responsibility is not merely to deliver content but to continuously adapt our pedagogy until we discover what resonates with our students.

For the last two semesters, while teaching Company Law-I, I decided to experiment with my assessment pattern. Instead of relying solely on conventional written submissions or presentations, I designed what I called a Boardroom Experience through an AI-assisted Role Play Simulation-an immersive assessment intended to replicate the dynamics of corporate decision-making and dispute resolution.

| Why I Replaced a Conventional Assessment Method with a Corporate Boardroom Simulation |

The class was divided into groups of five, with each student assuming a distinct role in a corporate governance dispute. The participants represented the Company and its Counsel, the Director and the Director's Counsel, Shareholders/Investors, SEBI/Registrar of Companies, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The proposition revolved around a familiar yet complex issue under the Companies Act, 2013. The company alleged that one of its directors had authorised the release of a prospectus containing material misstatements, resulting in significant investor losses. Consequently, the shareholders of the company initiated proceedings to remove the director under Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The simulation unfolded in two stages- The first stage recreated the company boardroom. Shareholders argued that investors had relied upon misleading disclosures while subscribing to securities and that the director had breached his fiduciary responsibilities by approving inaccurate statements. Counsel for the company relied on principles of transparency, accountability, and statutory compliance, contending that the confidence of shareholders could only be restored through the director's removal.

On the other hand, counsel representing the director argued that the alleged misstatements were neither deliberate nor attributable solely to their client. They contended that the prospectus had undergone multiple levels of internal review and that collective responsibility of the Board could not suddenly transform into individual liability. They further questioned whether procedural safeguards under Section 169 had been adequately followed before passing the resolution.

After a spirited debate, the shareholders voted in favour of the removal resolution. However, the dispute, however, did not end there.

In the second stage, the director challenged the removal before the National Company Law Tribunal, alleging oppression, procedural irregularity, and violation of principles of natural justice. Simultaneously, the representatives from Securities Exchange Board of India and Registrar of Companies examined whether the alleged misstatements in the prospectus warranted regulatory intervention under securities laws. Students acting as Tribunal Members questioned both sides extensively on corporate governance standards, disclosure obligations, shareholder rights, and due process before ultimately delivering a reasoned decision.

What impressed me the most was not simply the legal accuracy of the arguments, but the enthusiasm with which students embraced their roles. They researched statutory provisions, interpreted judicial principles, anticipated counterarguments, and defended their positions with remarkable confidence. Students who were relatively quiet during traditional lectures became persuasive advocates when entrusted with responsibility.

As an assessment, the exercise achieved something that conventional examinations often struggle to accomplish. It substantially reduced the possibility of duplication or repetitive submissions while encouraging original thinking. More importantly, it assessed competencies that the legal profession genuinely values-research, teamwork, legal reasoning, advocacy, negotiation, communication, and critical thinking.

Law schools often speak about producing "practice-ready lawyers." Yet the legal profession demands much more than the ability to reproduce statutory provisions in an examination. It requires the capacity to analyse uncertainty, defend a position under pressure, collaborate with diverse stakeholders, and make principled decisions in complex situations.

This experience reaffirmed my belief that assessments should not merely evaluate learning-they should become learning experiences themselves. As educators, we constantly seek innovative ways to bridge the gap between legal theory and professional practice. This Boardroom Simulation reminded me that sometimes, all it takes is a slight shift in the assessment pattern to transform a classroom into a courtroom, a boardroom, and ultimately, a space where students truly begin to think like lawyers.

After all, teaching is not about finding the perfect method. It is about continuously refining our craft until learning becomes an experience rather than an obligation.