Meghalaya High Court Allows Ailing Law Student To Sit For Exams | Rule On Minimum Attendance Cannot Override Acts Of God
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Meghalaya Division Bench of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh allowed an appeal filed by a law student who was denied permission to write his fifth semester examination due to shortage of attendance. The Court held that the relevant attendance rule did not apply to extraordinary circumstances such as illness and directed that the appellant be treated as having regular attendance. It further directed that he be assessed in the fifth semester examination in the regular course, setting aside the earlier order of the single judge.
The appellant, a fifth semester LLB student of Shillong Law College affiliated with North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), was barred from appearing in the end semester examination conducted in December 2024. The college cited shortage of attendance as the reason, invoking Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
According to Rule 12, students who fail to maintain a minimum of 70% attendance in each subject are not eligible to write the end semester test. A limited relaxation allows students with at least 65% attendance to appear for the examination, provided they can show exceptional reasons, and the decision is taken by the Dean or Principal. In this case, the appellant had an overall attendance of 60% and was declared ineligible.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the single bench of the High Court, citing that his low attendance resulted from a gallbladder ailment and subsequent surgery undergone in November 2024. He pleaded that the shortfall was not due to negligence but due to genuine medical reasons. However, the learned single judge held that the statutory rule was binding and declined to grant relief.
Challenging the decision, the appellant filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. By an interim order dated 5 December 2024, the Court permitted the appellant to appear for the examination pending final disposal of the appeal. It was noted in the appeal that he had participated in the examination, though the result had not yet been declared.
In support of the appeal, the appellant submitted that his performance and attendance, except for the medically constrained period, reflected a consistent academic commitment. Specifically, he had 100% attendance in multiple subjects in September 2024—Evidence, Civil Procedure Code, Labour Law, and Drafting, Pleadings and Conveyancing. He also recorded 85.71% attendance in Human Rights. The average attendance across all subjects that month was 97%.
However, in August and again in October 2024, his attendance dipped significantly due to recurrence of gallbladder-related issues, culminating in a surgical procedure in November 2024. Consequently, by the end of the semester, his average attendance had dropped to 60%, below the threshold stipulated in Rule 12.
The appellant argued that this factual scenario fell outside the intended scope of Rule 12 and urged that the rule be applied in a reasonable and humane manner, taking into account his medical condition and academic diligence.
The respondents, including NEHU, the Controller of Examinations, the Vice Chancellor, and the Principal of Shillong Law College, contested the appeal, relying on the rigid applicability of Rule 12. They maintained that attendance below 65% automatically disqualified the student from appearing in the exam, irrespective of the reason for the shortfall.
The Court began by referring to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, noting the conditional allowance for students with attendance between 65% and 70% if exceptional reasons exist. The Bench then examined whether the present case, involving a serious illness, warranted departure from the minimum attendance requirement.
Providing context to the earlier interim relief, the Court recalled: “Prima facie we are of the view that this rule is to be interpreted reasonably. When it is possible for the student to attend classes and he deliberately or negligently does not do so, the rule would apply.”
It continued by stating that a distinction must be made where absence is due to compelling circumstances:“In case of impossibility created by illness, act of God etc., this rule is either not to be applied or to be liberally construed, so that taking into account the overall performance of the student and his conduct, his case for being allowed to write the examination is compassionately considered.”
The Court found no allegations of academic indiscipline or poor performance and noted: “Prima facie there is nothing to suggest anything against the merit of the student.”
Upon final hearing, the Division Bench accepted the reasoning laid out in the interim order and concluded that Rule 12 did not govern circumstances involving serious illness or events beyond human control: “We reiterate that the above rule could only cover a situation where in normal circumstances a student is absent and his attendance falls below 70 per cent.”
Clarifying the limits of the rule, the Bench recorded: “But this rule certainly does not cover extraordinary circumstances like illness or bereavement in a student’s family, natural disaster, riot strife, political upheavals, other acts of God and so on which prevent a student or students from attending classes.”
The Court noted that the obligation of institutional authorities to evaluate individual cases on their merit rather than apply blanket rules: “In such a case, this rule would not apply. The administrators of the college are to consider each case on its own merit.”
It further stated that: “If they find that with the existing attendance the student has shown sufficient interest in and has adequate knowledge of the subjects in the semester and is otherwise diligent and of good conduct, he should be allowed to write the examination.”
Referring directly to the appellant’s academic record, the Court held: “In this case, the record shows that had the student not been inflicted with gallbladder ailment, he would have maintained regular attendance and fulfils the above qualifying criteria.”
The Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the single judge. It directed that the attendance of the appellant/writ petitioner be treated as regular and that he be assessed in the 5th semester examination in regular course.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Yobin, Advocate with Ms. I. Laloo, Advocate and Mr. A. Dkhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Sen, Advocate with Ms. E. Blah, Advocate for Respondents 1–3; Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Senior Advocate with Mr. E. Laloo, Advocate for Respondent 4
Case Title: Bamang Nabam v. North Eastern Hill University & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:361-DB
Case Number: WA No. 74 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji, Justice W. Diengdoh
[Read/Download order]
