Delhi HC Bars Law Colleges from Withholding Exams over Attendance Shortfall; Directs BCI to Revise Rules
The Delhi High Court ruled that no law student in India can be barred from exams due to attendance shortages and directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reform attendance policies to prevent mental health harm. The Court emphasized student-centric education, modernization of attendance rules, and mandated grievance redressal mechanisms in law colleges.
The Delhi High Court, in a suo motu case initiated after the 2016 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, pronounced a judgment forbidding law colleges in India from barring students from exams due to attendance shortfalls. The Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to review and amend its mandatory attendance norms to align with evolving educational practices like hybrid and online learning and with both domestic and international standards. The judgment criticized overly rigid attendance requirements that cause psychological harm, emphasizing the need for rules that foster growth and confidence rather than fear or mental strain. The Court mandated that until revised attendance norms are established, no law student can be prevented from academic progress or exam participation due to absenteeism. It also required all higher education institutions to form Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs) as per UGC guidelines, aimed at protecting student welfare. The ruling underscored the importance of attendance as a tool for engagement rather than exclusion and encouraged humane, student-focused disciplinary approaches in legal education. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Ministry of Education’s slow implementation of these committees and urged quicker compliance. Amity Law School, involved due to the Rohilla case, was asked to consider compensation for the bereaved family. Overall, the judgment represents a significant shift towards more flexible, psychologically sensitive attendance policies in Indian legal education.
