The Delhi High Court ruled on Monday that no law student in India can be stopped from taking examinations due to insufficient attendance. The court directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate mandatory attendance rules. This judgment came while disposing of a suo motu petition related to the 2016 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, who was allegedly barred from semester exams due to poor attendance. The court emphasized that strict attendance norms cause mental trauma and hinder holistic legal education. It highlighted that legal learning requires practical training, moot courts, seminars, and court visits, not just classroom presence. Until the BCI revises its norms, no law college or university can detain students or prevent their academic progress solely on attendance grounds. The court also mandated all educational institutions to establish grievance redressal committees for student welfare.
Background of the Case and Court's Observations
The petition originated from the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla, a third-year Amity Law School student, who hanged himself on August 10, 2016, after being barred from semester exams due to attendance shortage. He left a note calling himself a failure. The court acknowledged that while attendance may not have been the sole reason, it was a contributing factor to his death. Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma delivered a 122-page judgment, stating that legal education involves practical application, knowledge of court systems, legal aid, and participation in moot courts and seminars. Mere classroom presence is neither necessary nor sufficient for such holistic learning. The court noted several student suicides over the years linked to mandatory attendance pressures and mental health crises.
Directions Issued to BCI and Educational Institutions
The court directed the BCI to re-evaluate attendance norms for three-year and five-year LLB courses, incorporating credit for moot courts, seminars, debates, and court hearings. Until new norms are finalized, no student shall be detained from examinations or career progression due to attendance shortfall. Law colleges must implement weekly attendance notifications, monthly notices to parents about shortages, and conduct extra classes. If a student still falls short, they must be allowed to take exams, though their grade may be reduced by a maximum of 5 per cent in marks or 0.33 per cent in CGPA. Promotion to the next semester cannot be withheld solely for attendance. All institutions must constitute grievance redressal committees as per UGC regulations to safeguard student mental health.
Source: Link