Attendance Shortfall Cannot Bar Law Students From Exams; Delhi High Court Grants Relief To DU Law Students
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has allowed a batch of writ petitions by University of Delhi law students, holding that a shortfall in attendance cannot justify detaining them from examinations or disrupting their continuation in the LL.B. programme. The petitions concerned students who were barred from taking end-semester papers or whose results were withheld for not meeting a stipulated 70% attendance threshold. The Court directed the University and other authorities not to detain any petitioner on this ground and held that consequential relief must follow, including permission to attend classes, promotion to the next semester, and declaration of results, with any sealed-cover results to be disclosed within two weeks.
The petitions were instituted by students enrolled in the LL.B. Degree Programme conducted under the academic supervision of the University of Delhi. The dispute arose from actions taken by the university authorities detaining the petitioners and cancelling or withholding their examination results on the ground that they had failed to secure the minimum prescribed attendance. The regulatory framework governing the issue comprised Rules 10 and 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which stipulate the semester structure, minimum instructional hours, and attendance requirements for eligibility to appear in end-semester examinations.
It was an admitted position that the petitioners had not achieved 70% attendance during the relevant academic period. The petitioners contended that shortage of attendance, by itself, could not constitute a valid ground for detention or denial of academic progression, relying on the binding judgment of the Division Bench in Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University, In re. The respondents, including the University of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, relied on the mandatory language of Rules 10 and 12 and on inquiry proceedings conducted by the university, pursuant to which results of certain students were not declared and examinations were treated as cancelled. The Bar Council of India also submitted that the Division Bench judgment was under challenge before the Supreme Court and had not been diluted.
The Court noted that “the present batch of writ petitions, though couched in differently worded prayers and seeking varied consequential reliefs, are traceable to a common and singular fountainhead, namely, the ‘shortfall in the minimum prescribed attendance’.” It recorded that the petitioners were admittedly law students pursuing the LL.B. programme under the University of Delhi and that regulation of legal education vested in the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Referring extensively to the Division Bench decision in Sushant Rohilla v. Law Student of I.P. University, the Court observed 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 or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.” It further noted that the Division Bench had examined Rules 10 and 12 of the Legal Education Rules in depth and had answered the broader question “whether mandatory physical attendance constitutes a non-negotiable component of the teaching and training of students of law” in the negative.
The Court recorded the Division Bench’s findings that institutions frequently fail to meet the minimum class hours prescribed under Rule 10 while continuing to rigidly enforce Rule 12, resulting in an imbalance between institutional obligations and student burdens. It quoted the observation that “barring the student from sitting in an examination cannot even be the last resort undertaken by the concerned institutions.”
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on prior judgments and inquiry proceedings, the Court stated that the university inquiry order pre-dated the Division Bench ruling and could not prevail once the law had been declared. It also observed that undertakings obtained from students prior to the Division Bench judgment “cannot be permitted to prevail” where they operate contrary to subsequently declared law. The Court further recorded that the Division Bench judgment had neither been stayed nor modified and therefore remained binding.
The Court directed that “all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed not to detain any of the petitioners on the ground of lack of attendance. Once lack of attendance is held not to constitute a valid ground for detention, all consequential benefits flowing therefrom shall necessarily follow.” The Court clarified that “these shall include, but not be limited to, promotion to the next semester, declaration of results, permission to attend classes, and conferment of the LL.B. Degree, in accordance with law.”
The Court rejected the submission that cancellation of results could not be interfered with, and held that “once this Court declares the very foundation or fountainhead of the impugned action namely, ‘lack of attendance’ to be illegal, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is fully empowered to mould the relief so as to do complete justice between the parties. Such power would necessarily include the grant of appropriate consequential directions, including permission to appear in supplementary examinations, where the facts so warrant.”
“If there is any result given in sealed cover, the same shall be declared expeditiously and not later than two weeks from today.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivek Rai Kapoor, Advocate; Mr. Vansh Bajaj, Advocate; Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate; Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Vishal Jaswal, Advocate; Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Nirbhay Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Soni, Advocate; Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Anupam Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Aman Ranjan, Advocate; Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocate; Mr. Jay Prakash Vidyarthi, Advocate; Mr. Raman Kapur, Senior Advocate; Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Mehaq Rao, Advocate; Mr. Yash Punjabi, Advocate; Mr. Puneet Rathore, Advocate; Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Himanshu Maru, Advocate; Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Junaid Aamir, Advocate; and others as recorded.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Advocate; Mr. Hardik Rupal, Advocate; Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocate; Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advocate for the University of Delhi; Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate; Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Advocate; Ms. Medha Navami, Advocate for the Bar Council of India.
Case Title: Muskaan Aamir & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:502
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13273/2025 & Connected Matters
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
