Delhi High Court: No Law Student Can Be Barred from Exams for Lack of Attendance

In a landmark ruling that addresses the mental health and academic rights of students, the Delhi High Court has held that no law student across India can be prevented from appearing for examinations on the ground of attendance shortage. The decision comes nearly nine years after the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who died by suicide in 2016 after being barred from sitting for his semester exams due to insufficient attendance.


Background: The Sushant Rohilla Case and Judicial Intervention

In August 2016, Sushant Rohilla, a third-year law student at Amity Law School, Delhi, took his own life after being denied permission to sit for his semester exams. His death raised serious questions about the rigidity of attendance norms and their impact on students’ mental health.

Following the incident, a suo motu petition was initiated by the Supreme Court of India in September 2016 to examine the broader issue of attendance-related restrictions in law colleges. In March 2017, the case was transferred to the Delhi High Court for further hearing and appropriate directions.


The High Court’s Verdict

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma delivered the ruling, declaring that no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from taking an examination or be prevented from academic progression on the ground of lack of attendance.

The court observed:

“Norms in education in general and legal education in particular cannot be made so stringent so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone the death of a student.”

The bench underscored that academic regulations must promote learning and well-being, not penalize students to the point of emotional distress.


Directions Issued by the Delhi High Court

The High Court issued several directives aimed at balancing institutional discipline with student welfare:

  1. Consultation by Bar Council of India (BCI):
    The BCI, as the regulatory body governing legal education in India, has been directed to hold consultations with students, parents, teachers, and academic experts to develop a uniform national attendance policy.

  2. Temporary Suspension of Attendance-Based Detention:
    Until such uniform guidelines are formulated, no law student in India can be barred from taking examinations or advancing academically due to shortage of attendance.

  3. Prohibition of Excessive Institutional Norms:
    No law college or university shall enforce attendance requirements stricter than the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI.

  4. Mandatory Transparency Measures:

    • Law institutions must publish weekly attendance records on an online portal or mobile app.

    • Monthly notifications must be sent to parents or legal guardians informing them about attendance shortfalls.

    • Colleges must arrange extra classes (physical or online) for students unable to meet attendance requirements, ensuring academic parity.


Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions

The ruling is rooted in the constitutional guarantees and statutory framework governing education in India:

1. Bar Council of India Rules, 2008 (Legal Education Rules):

  • Rule 12 prescribes a minimum attendance of 70% of lectures for eligibility to appear in exams.

  • However, this rule has been challenged as being overly rigid and lacking flexibility for genuine cases such as medical or mental health issues.

2. Constitutional Provisions:

  • Article 14 (Equality before Law): Any discriminatory or arbitrary exclusion from exams due to attendance can be challenged as violating the right to equality.

  • Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Interpreted to include the right to education, mental well-being, and dignity. Denying academic progression due to attendance can impinge upon these rights.

  • Article 21A: Recognizes education as a fundamental right, emphasizing access and continuity of learning.

  • Article 41 (Directive Principles of State Policy): Directs the State to ensure the right to education and work under humane conditions.


Judicial Precedents and Relevance

The High Court’s approach aligns with earlier judicial recognition of the right to education as a fundamental facet of Article 21:

  • Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645:
    The Supreme Court recognized education as integral to the right to life, stressing that access to education cannot be denied on unreasonable grounds.

  • Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 398:
    Emphasized the State’s duty to ensure safe and supportive educational environments.

  • University of Delhi v. Anand Vardhan (2016) SCC OnLine Del 3724:
    The Delhi High Court had previously acknowledged that administrative rigidity should not override academic fairness, allowing students relief in exceptional attendance cases.

By building on these precedents, the current ruling reinforces the balance between institutional autonomy and students’ constitutional rights.


Impact on Law Students and Educational Institutions

This judgment is expected to have a nationwide impact on law colleges and universities, compelling them to:

  • Reassess attendance policies.

  • Incorporate mental health and student welfare considerations into academic administration.

  • Enhance communication transparency through digital attendance systems.

It also ensures that students facing genuine hardships—such as illness, financial constraints, or family emergencies—are not penalized unfairly.


Significance and Way Forward

The Delhi High Court’s decision is both empathetic and reformative. It shifts the focus of legal education from mere compliance to compassion, safeguarding the mental health and dignity of students.

By directing the BCI to develop uniform attendance norms, the ruling aims to eliminate arbitrary disparities between institutions and ensure that no future incident like Sushant Rohilla’s tragic death recurs.

This judgment is a reminder that law schools must uphold not only legal discipline but also humane values — the very principles that future lawyers are meant to defend.


Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has set a progressive precedent that redefines the relationship between academic regulation and student welfare. Until the BCI formalizes uniform norms, no law student in India can be debarred from examinations for lack of attendance.

The verdict emphasizes that education policies must serve human development, not punish human vulnerability. In doing so, the court has reaffirmed the spirit of the Constitution — justice, equality, and compassion in education.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny