The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a significant interim direction barring law universities and colleges from preventing students from appearing in examinations solely on the grounds of attendance shortage. A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma further directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct a comprehensive review of the mandatory attendance requirements for both the three-year and five-year law programmes, concluding that legal education transcends mere classroom learning.
Background
The court issued the order while hearing a plea that was originally taken up by the Supreme Court in 2016 following the tragic alleged suicide of a student at Amity Law University. The student had reportedly been barred from taking examinations due to insufficient attendance. The Supreme Court subsequently transferred the case to the Delhi High Court in March 2017.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court bench observed that the nature of legal education requires a holistic approach that cannot be confined to rote learning or one-dimensional teaching. The court stated that legal education encompasses “various facets such as understanding the law, applying it in practice, and implementing it effectively.”
The bench was critical of a rigid attendance-only model, stating that “mere classroom attendance is neither necessary nor sufficient for such holistic learning.” It emphasized that students’ participation in activities such as moot courts, seminars, mock parliaments, debates, and court visits should be recognized and credited as part of their academic engagement.
In its observations, the court noted the potential negative impact of inflexible rules, stating, “Mandatory attendance norms also tend to curb creative freedom by forcing students to be in a particular space that is sometimes without any value generation.”
The court called for a modernization of the regulations, pronouncing in its verdict: “There’s a need to have a relook, and modify the manner in which mandatory physical attendance is to be perceived, and how attendance not be adapted with the changing times. Instead of barring students from taking examinations, alternative and less stringent methods ought to be explored.”
The Decision and Directions
In order to safeguard the lives and mental health of students, the court issued several binding directions:
- Interim Protection for Students: As an interim measure, the court directed that “no student shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from pursuing further academic or career opportunities on the grounds of insufficient attendance.”
- Cap on Attendance Rules: The court barred any law college, university, or institution from imposing attendance requirements that exceed the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI.
- Review of Norms by BCI: The Bar Council of India was explicitly directed to “undertake a revaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three year and five year LLB courses in India.” This review must be conducted in line with the court’s observations, the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, and the 2023 UGC regulations, all of which “contemplate flexibility.”
- Inclusion of Co-curriculars: As part of the review, the BCI “shall incorporate modification of attendance norms, to enable giving credit to moot court, seminars, mock parliament, debates, and attending court hearings.”
- Grievance Redressal Committees: The court directed all universities and colleges across the country to establish Grievance Redressal Committees.
- Student Representation in Committees: The University Grants Commission (UGC) was asked to “hold consultations and consider amending its regulations” to ensure that students constitute 50% of the total membership of these grievance committees. The court clarified that students must serve as “active, full-time members” and not merely as “special invitees,” with adequate representation for female, male, and other genders.
A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.
