The Supreme Court of India agreed on Wednesday to hear a plea challenging a landmark Delhi High Court verdict that ruled educational institutions cannot prevent students from appearing in examinations due to a lack of minimum attendance. While the top court has sought responses from the Bar Council of India (BCI) and other stakeholders, it notably declined to stay the high court’s order for the time being.
Concerns Over University Culture
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi raised concerns regarding the potential impact of removing mandatory attendance requirements. The justices observed that if the High Court’s position were accepted without further review, the hostels of National Law Universities and various law colleges could risk becoming “just boarding and lodging facilities” rather than centers of active academic engagement.
Despite these reservations, the bench maintained the status quo of the High Court’s November 3 ruling while it prepares to decide on the legal merits of the challenge.
The Tragedy Behind the Ruling
The legal battle stems from a deeply personal tragedy. The Delhi High Court’s original judgment was delivered during the disposal of a suo motu petition regarding the death of Sushant Rohilla.
Rohilla, a third-year law student, died by suicide on August 10, 2016. He left behind a note stating he felt like a “failure” after his college allegedly barred him from sitting for semester exams due to falling short of the required attendance percentage. The Supreme Court initially initiated the petition before transferring it to the High Court for further proceedings.
In its verdict, the High Court took a firm stance on student welfare, stating that attendance norms “cannot be made so stringent that they lead to mental trauma, let alone the death of a student.”
A Call for Modernized Standards
The High Court’s ruling, which is now under Supreme Court scrutiny, included several directives aimed at reforming the Indian legal education system:
- Re-evaluation of Norms: The Bar Council of India (BCI) was directed to re-evaluate mandatory attendance for both three-year and five-year LLB courses.
- Holistic Credit: The court suggested that attendance credit should be granted for practical academic activities, such as moot courts, seminars, model parliaments, debates, and attending actual court hearings.
- Institutional Limits: No university or institution should be allowed to mandate attendance percentages higher than the minimum prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.
- Student Support: The court mandated that all educational institutions must establish Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) in line with 2023 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations to safeguard students’ mental health.
The Supreme Court will now weigh the necessity of mandatory classroom presence against the High Court’s emphasis on student well-being and modern educational flexibility.
