In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has declared that no law student in India can be prohibited from taking examinations due to insufficient attendance. This decision comes nearly nine years after the distressing suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla in 2016, which brought the issue of strict attendance norms to the forefront.
The bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, emphasized that educational regulations, particularly in legal education, should not be so rigid that they cause mental distress or, tragically, lead to a student’s death. The court’s verdict was delivered following a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court.
The High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI), the regulatory body for legal education, to review and amend the mandatory attendance requirements across all law colleges nationwide. Key directives include:
- The BCI must consult with all stakeholders, including students, parents, and faculty, to establish uniform attendance norms.
- The consultation should be expedited to ensure the mental well-being and academic progression of students.
- Pending the BCI’s review, no student should be barred from examinations or academic pursuits due to lack of minimum attendance.
- Institutions are prohibited from imposing attendance requirements beyond the minimum percentage set by the BCI.
- Law colleges are required to implement immediate measures such as weekly attendance notifications, monthly parental updates on attendance status, and the provision of extra classes for students with attendance shortfalls.
The case of Sushant Rohilla, a third-year law student who died by suicide after being barred from semester exams at Amity Law School in Delhi, highlighted the severe impact of rigid attendance policies. This court intervention seeks to ensure that academic pressures do not adversely affect students’ mental health.