+91 964 334 1948
03 Nov 2025, 06:01 AM
The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that no student enrolled in any recognized law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.
The Court observed that attendance norms in education, particularly legal education, can't be made so stringent so that they lead to mental trauma of students, and their deaths by suicide.
The bench closed a suo motu case concerning the suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi in 2016.
His friend wrote a letter to then CJI alleging in August that year that Rohilla was subjected to harassment by the college and some faculty members for maintaining low attendance.
As per the letter, Rohilla was forced to repeat an entire academic year. The Supreme Court had then taken cognizance of the letter petition by the friend, and had finally in its order of March 6, 2017 transferred the matter to the high court.
While pronouncing the final verdict in the matter today, the Court said even if attendance is not the only factor which led to the unfortunate incident of loss of Rohilla, loss of a young life cannot come at the cost of mandatory attendance norms.
Considering stark realities and hearing stakeholders on the issue, the Bench said that instead of barring students due to shortage of attendance, less stringent norms must be explored.
“There are several other cases of suicide by students over the years which have been connected to mandatory attendance requirements. Mental health crisis arising from the pressure to meet such attendance requirements and other related issues. These have also been recently highlighted and dealt with by the Supreme Court in two decisions,” the Court said.
It observed that University education begins for students at the prime time of their youth, where focus must be on academic excellence coupled with holistic growth, which includes physical activities such as sport, extra activities, dance music, drama, as also building interpersonal relationships, social skills and preparation for a life that awaits them beyond the gates of the university.
“Legal Education does not merely require one sided teaching. It has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law and the implementation thereof. In order to obtain such holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required nor can be sufficient. Classroom education has to be coupled with practical training, knowledge of court systems, prison systems, Legal Aid, gaining practical experience in moot court, seminars, Parliament debates, attending court hearings, etc. These activities need to be weaved into the legal curriculum in a manner that ensures multi dimensional learning and training of law students, which would not be possible with strict mandatory attendance requirements. Thus sufficient flexibility in marking of attendance to promote participation in multifarious areas of learning in law school is essential to inculcate a growth mindset in budding law students,” the Court held.
It said that the vision for education in India, both in the manner of teaching and learning, has drastically changed with the national education policy.
The Court noted that the NEP 2020 envisages multi disciplinary study online classes, as also increasing virtual participation of students and teachers.
“The crux of both the NEP and the extent UGC regulations is flexibility and not rigidity. It is common knowledge that, in today's day and age, the manner in which education is impacted through online classes, public domain video tutorials, encourages and enables a growing number of youth to conceptually understand through these modes of learning, such learning is, in fact, sometimes even better than classroom learning.”
The Court observed that classroom learning is meant to encourage discourse and discussion between teachers and students as also to create a space where there can be dialogue and engagement on various subjects.
“It is also been a consistent observation that students invariably attend lectures of teachers who make such lectures engaging and interesting. This ought not to be achieved by mandatory attendance norms, but by creating a space where feedback can be exchanged between teachers and students, lectures which are engrossing automatically attract students, proving that attendance ought to be achieved by voluntary participation, rather than by imposing rigid norms,” the Court said.
“The harsh reality of practices such as proxy attendance in many institutions is well known. Detention due to non adherence to mandatory attendance does not take into consideration practical difficulties and compulsions that large number of students face at university, such as financial distress, responsibility of families commuting from far off places, difficulties of independent living. Mandatory attendance norms also tend to curb creative freedom by forcing students to be in a particular space that do sometimes without any value generation bearing all the above factors in mind,” it added.
The Court held that there is a need to have a relook and modify the manner in which mandatory physical attendance is to be perceived and how attendance norms need to be adapted with the changing times.
It said that instead of barring students from taking examination, alternative and less stringent methods ought to be explored.
“This Court is thus of the opinion that mandatory physical attendance requirements need to be reconsidered in the context of NEP 2020, and the UGC regulations, which provide for flexibility in imparting education, specifically in the context of legal education, mandatory physical attendance norms need to be modified,” it said.
The Bench directed that it would be mandatory for all educational institutions and universities to constitute grievance redressal committees (GRCs)in terms of the University Grants Commission regulations, 2023.
Observing that GRCs are for safeguarding interest of students, including their mental health, the Bench directed the UGC to initiate consultations and consider amending the UGC regulations. It said that in all GRCs, at least two to three student nominees shall be appointed as members.
“BCI will amend the conditions of affiliation under Rule 16 to include appointment of adequate number of counselors, psychologists in the GRCs, in the respective centers for legal education,” the Court said.
“The Bar Council of India shall undertake a reevaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three year and five year LLP courses in India, in line with the above observations, as also in line with NEP 2020, and 2003 UGC regulations, which contemplate flexibility as part of this process,” the Court said.
“BCI shall incorporate modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot court seminars, Parliament debates, attending court hearings. BCI shall undertake a stakeholder consultation, including students, student bodies, parents, teachers, for this purpose, in an expeditious manner, in order to safeguard the life and mental health of students,” it added.
“keeping in mind the debilitating impact on students at detention or non appearance in exams due to mandatory attendance requirements can have, while the consultations by the BCI are underway, in the interregnum, it is directed as under, no student enrolled in any recognized law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance. No law college university or institution shall be permitted to mandate norms attendant of norms which are over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI,” the Court said.
Further, the Bench directed all BCI recognized law colleges and Universities to, with immediate effect, implement accelerative measures, including, weekly notification of attendance of student to online portal or a mobile app, monthly notice to parents or legal guardians regarding any shortage in attendance, conducting extra physical or online classes for such students who do not fulfill the minimum attendance norms.
The Court said that home assignments, stringent practical work in legal aid clinics or similar such bodies must be allotted to students so as to cover up the shortage of attendance during the semester itself.
“The attendance percentage shall be calculated on the basis of actual classes held by teachers. If at the end of the semester, a student still does not qualify the prescribed attendance norms, the college or university cannot bar the student from taking the examination. The student shall be permitted to take the semester exam. However, in the final result, the grade of the student would be permitted to be reduced by a maximum of 5% in case of marks being awarded, and by 0.33% in case of CGPA system being followed. Merely on shortage of attendance, promotion to the next semester shall not be withheld,” the Court held.
Further, the Court directed BCI to also take steps to enable internships to be made available to all law students, especially those students belonging to economically weaker background, remote areas, especially abled students who do not have resources to arrange the same.
It added that list of senior advocates, advocates, law firms, regulatory bodies, government organizations willing to provide internships to students shall be published by the BCI and the State Bar councils on their respective websites within three months.
“The said list shall be periodically updated and published city wise by the BCI and State Bar councils to the students, so that the students can apply for and obtain internships,” it said.
Previously, the Bench had asked the Secretary, Union Ministry of Education (dealing with Higher Education) to commence stakeholder consultations to discuss whether attendance norms should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
On August 21, 2024, the Bench had said that there was an imminent need to have reconsideration of mandatory attendance norms in undergraduate or postgraduate courses.
It had said that it intends to form a Committee to study various factors and to place a report as to what uniform practices can be evolved for undergraduate and postgraduate courses in respect of attendance requirements.
It had also sought stand of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the attendance requirements for five year LL.B. degree courses.
Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY