Law students cannot be barred from giving exams solely on the basis of attendance
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has made a significant decision stating that no law student in India can be prevented from taking exams or advancing academically just because of low attendance. The Court stressed that attendance policies should focus on promoting learning and mental health, rather than being punitive. This ruling, which stems from the unfortunate suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla in 2016, represents a crucial development in the realm of legal education and student rights.
Background of the case
The case arose from the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla, a third-year student at Amity Law School, New Delhi, who reportedly committed suicide after being prevented from taking exams due to insufficient attendance. This incident prompted the Delhi High Court to initiate suo motu proceedings (W.P. (Crl.) 793/2017) to assess whether the stringent attendance regulations outlined in Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India (Legal Education) Rules, 2008 needed to be reconsidered.
The petition raised concerns about whether inflexible attendance requirements in classrooms were in line with contemporary legal education principles that emphasize the importance of moot courts, internships, and research activities in the learning process.
Observation of the Court
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singhand Justice Amit Sharma, noted that education goes beyond just being physically present in classrooms. Legal education now encompasses various aspects, including experiential exercises and digital interaction. The Court ruled that it is arbitrary and detrimental to educational and mental well-being to detain or deny exams solely based on low attendance.
The court held –
“Barring the student from sitting in an examination cannot even be the last resort…considering the debilitating consequences for the student including mental health and career prospects.”
Order of the Court
The Court ordered that –
• The Delhi High Court ruled that students enrolled in any recognized law college, university, or institution in India cannot be barred from taking exams or hindered in their academic or career advancement due to insufficient attendance.
• The Court also ruled that law colleges, universities, or institutions cannot impose attendance requirements higher than the minimum percentage set by the BCI in the Legal Education Rules.
Directions suggested by the Court
The interim directive states that no law student can be prevented from taking exams or advancing to the next semester solely due to attendance issues until the BCI completes its review of attendance regulations.
The Law schools are required to adhere to the attendance requirements set by the BCI and are not allowed to enforce stricter rules.
Institutions should implement support measures such as providing attendance updates, notifying parents or guardians, and offering additional tutorials for students with low attendance. The BCI is instructed to engage with various stakeholders, including students, parents, and teachers, to reassess and amend the attendance regulations for 3-year and 5-year LL.B. programs, potentially recognizing co-curricular and experiential activities like moot courts, debates, and court visits.
Conclusion
This ruling reflects a forward-thinking approach to legal education, emphasizing the well-being of students, adaptability, and contemporary teaching techniques. It recognizes that legal education goes beyond traditional lectures, incorporating moots, research, and community engagement. By establishing attendance guidelines that are fair and practical, the Delhi High Court has underscored the importance of maintaining fairness, empathy, and academic freedom in the study of law principles that are fundamental to the concept of justice.
Case sited –
Sushant Rohilla vs
Case type – Suo Moto by the Delhi High Court
Pdf of Judgement- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS03112025CRLW7932017_132654.pdf
