In a pivotal ruling addressing student welfare and institutional accountability, the Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to re-evaluate its stringent attendance norms following the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU). Sushant’s death, which occurred in 2017, brought to light the heavy toll that strict academic policies can have on students, sparking widespread debate on the mental health implications of mandatory attendance requirements in educational institutions.
The court, led by a bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, delivered its decision on October 14, 2024. The judges emphasized the need for a balanced approach to attendance regulations, calling for a review that considers students’ mental health and well-being.
Background of the Case:
The case, Courts on Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla (W.P.(CRL) 793/2017), originated from the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a third-year student of Amity Law School, which is affiliated with GGSIPU. Sushant’s death, reportedly caused by academic distress due to his inability to meet the BCI’s stringent attendance requirements, raised critical concerns about the pressures faced by students.
Amity Law School, where Sushant was studying, had repeatedly informed his parents about his shortage of attendance. Despite these notifications, Sushant struggled to cope with the academic pressure, which culminated in his tragic decision to take his own life. His passing sparked protests and calls for reforms in the education system, especially with regard to the attendance policies that some believe contributed to his distress.
The High Court took suo motu cognizance of the case, initiating a judicial review of the attendance norms enforced by the BCI for law students, which require a high level of attendance for eligibility to sit for exams. The court also explored whether Amity Law School had sufficiently supported Sushant and other students facing academic difficulties.
Key Legal Issues:
The central legal question in the case revolved around the mandatory attendance policies set by the BCI for law schools and whether these rules place undue pressure on students. The court examined whether these strict requirements, without sufficient consideration for student mental health, were contributing to academic stress and leading to extreme outcomes like Sushant’s suicide.
Another key issue was the role of educational institutions in providing adequate grievance redressal and mental health support for students struggling to meet these stringent academic standards. The case raised broader concerns about institutional responsibility in safeguarding student welfare beyond academic performance.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
In its ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India to review its attendance requirements, particularly for law students, in light of international standards and best practices in legal education. The court expressed concern that overly rigid attendance norms could exacerbate academic stress, stating:
“While attendance norms serve the purpose of maintaining academic discipline, they should not become an instrument of undue pressure that compromises student mental health and well-being.”
The court emphasized the need for educational institutions to maintain a balance between academic discipline and providing mental health support for students. The judges expressed dissatisfaction with the current grievance redressal mechanisms in place at many educational institutions and directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to ensure that Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs) are set up across all higher education institutions.
Involvement of Key Participants:
– Judges: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma
– Petitioner: The court initiated the case suo motu after Sushant Rohilla’s death.
– Counsel for Amity Law School: Mr. Ashok Mahajan
– Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Mr. Dayan Krishnan
– Counsel for Union of India: Mr. Chetan Sharma (Additional Solicitor General), Mr. Kirtiman Singh, and Mr. Waize Ali Noor
– Counsel for Bar Council of India: Mr. Preet Pal Singh
