The Delhi HC held that students enrolled in any recognised law college/university in India cannot be barred from taking examinations or progressing academically solely because of not meeting minimum attendance requirements.
It emphasised that no institution may impose attendance norms over and above what is prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Background
The decision stems from a suo motu case concerning the suicide of a law student, Sushant Rohilla, at Amity Law School, Delhi in 2016. It was alleged he was harassed for low attendance and forced to repeat an academic year.
The Court recognised the link between rigid attendance norms, student stress and even suicides.
Observations & Rationale
The Court noted that legal education demands more than mere physical classroom presence: it requires practical training, moot courts, debates, internships and other extracurricular engagement. Solely mandating high physical‐attendance is hence inadequate and counter‐productive.
The Court further observed that education policy (such as National Education Policy 2020) emphasises flexibility, interdisciplinary learning, online and virtual modes — rigid attendance norms conflict with this approach.
The Court pointed out practical challenges many students face: commuting long distances, financial constraints, proxies for attendance, and that automatic detention for attendance breach disregards these realities.
online and virtual modes attendance