Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held that no student enrolled in any recognized law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from appearing in examinations or restricted from pursuing further academic progression solely due to shortage of minimum attendance.

The case originated from the suicide of a law student enrolled in a private law college affiliated with a Delhi-based university in August 2016. A communication addressed to the Chief Justice of India by one of the student’s friends alleged that the student had been subjected to mental harassment by college authorities due to shortage of attendance. The letter was treated as a writ petition and later transferred to the Delhi High Court for appropriate consideration.

Also Read: Investigating Agencies Barred From Summoning Advocates For Legal Advice Given To Accused; Privileged Communications Protected Under S.132–134 BSA, In-House Counsel Not Covered By Privilege: Supreme Court

Following the student’s death, a First Information Report was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation, initially handled by the local police and later by the Crime Branch, included recording statements from faculty members, students, and family members, and collecting attendance records and correspondence from the institution. The police filed a closure report stating that no material evidence was found to substantiate allegations of abetment to suicide. The student’s sister filed a protest petition which was treated as a separate complaint.

The Bench recorded that “there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach in the enforcement of attendance rules, especially in professional courses where students face multiple academic and personal challenges.” The Court stated that “attendance norms should not become punitive in nature or be used as instruments of exclusion, particularly in cases involving genuine difficulties faced by students.” It further recorded that “no student should be made to feel alienated, victimized or threatened with exclusion merely on the ground of non-compliance with attendance norms.”

The Court referred to the regulatory framework under the University Grants Commission and the Bar Council of India and recorded that “grievance redressal committees are required to be constituted under the UGC (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012, but their implementation remains inconsistent across institutions.” The Bench observed that “the lack of a structured counselling system contributes to the absence of early intervention in cases of distress.”

The Bench stated that “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 then referred to the evolving nature of higher education and the increasing role of technology, recording that “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 Bench further reflected on the quality of teaching and student engagement, observing that “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 recorded that “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…”

Finally, the Court recorded 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.

Under these circumstances, and in view of the above discussion, the Court issued the following directions with respect to grievance redressal committees.

“It would be mandatory for all educational institutions and Universities to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees in terms of the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 (‘UGC Regulations, 2023’). Some of the models followed by various educational institutions, which are enumerated above, could also be considered while constituting the respective GRC.”

“In view of the fact that GRCs are primarily for safeguarding interest of students including their mental health, the UGC would initiate consultations and consider amending the UGC Regulations, 2023 to: (a) Modify the role played by the students in terms of the observations made hereinabove with student nominees constituting at least 50% of the total number of members; (b) Students shall not be special invitees but effective and full-time members of the GRCs; (c) Adequate representation shall be ensured for female, male and students of other genders, as deemed appropriate.”

“The UGC Regulations, 2023 shall also provide that the Counsellors and therapists would be consulted by the GRC on a regular basis. Whenever the situation shall demand and to that extent a panel of Counsellors and therapists shall be maintained/retained by educational institutions and Universities.”

“While the amendment of UGC Regulations, 2023 is pending, on all GRCs at least 2-3 student nominees shall be appointed as members.”

“BCI, in exercise of its power to inspect, recognize and accredit centres for legal education under Rule 14 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 shall amend the conditions of affiliation under Rule 16 to include the appointment of adequate number of Counsellors/Psychologists in the GRCs of the respective centres for legal education.”

Regarding attendance norms, the Court issued the following directions.

“The Bar Council of India shall undertake a re-evaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the 3-year and 5-year LLB courses in India in line with the above observations as also in line with the NEP, 2020 and also the 2003 UGC Regulations which contemplate flexibility in attendance requirements. As part of this process, the BCI shall also incorporate modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates, attending court hearings etc. In addition, ameliorative measures as contained below shall also be discussed and incorporated. BCI shall undertake a stakeholder consultation including students, student bodies, parents, teachers etc., for this purpose in an expeditious manner.”

“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.”

“No law college, University or institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.”

“Insofar as the mandatory attendance norms fixed by the BCI are concerned, all law colleges, Universities and institutions recognized which impart 3 years and 5 years LLB degree courses shall with immediate effect, implement ameliorative measures including– weekly notification of attendance of students through an online portal/ a mobile app including on the notice board; monthly notice to parents/legal guardian/family members regarding any shortage in attendance; conducting extra physical or online classes for such students, who do not fulfil the minimum attendance norms; home assignments to be completed in lieu of shortage of attendance; stringent practical work in legal aid clinics or similar such bodies, duly certified, which can cover up the shortage of attendance during the semester itself.”

“In terms of Rule 12 of Legal Education Rules, 2008, the attendance percentage shall be calculated on the basis of ACTUAL CLASSES HELD by the teachers.”

“If at the end of a semester, a student still does not qualify the prescribed attendance norms, the college/University cannot bar the student from taking the examination. The student shall be permitted to take the semester examination, however, in the final result for the semester, 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 the CGPA system being followed. Merely on shortage of attendance, promotion to the next Semester shall not be withheld.”

“In terms of the assurance given by the BCI on 10th January, 2020, read with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Legal Education Rules, the BCI shall also take steps to enable internships to be made available to all students, especially those students belonging to economically weaker background, remote areas, specially-abled students etc. who do not have resources to arrange the same.”

Also Read: Recovery of Contraband Without Proof of Possession or Independent Witnesses Not Attributable to Accused: Delhi High Court

“Accordingly, the list of senior advocates, advocates, law firms, regulatory bodies, government organizations, etc. who are 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 so that the students can apply for and obtain internships.”

“The Circular No. BCI:D:5186/2024 dated 24th September, 2024 issued by the Bar Council of India in respect of Biometric attendance, installation of CCTV cameras etc. in all centres of legal education across India, shall not be given effect to.”

“The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”

Case Title: Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of IP University
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9600 - DB
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & CRL.M.As.16639/2017, 8850/2024
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma