In a major judgment expected to redefine legal education in India, the Delhi High Court, while concluding a suo motu case related to the 2016 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, issued sweeping directions aimed at reforming mandatory attendance policies and safeguarding students’ mental health.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma delivered the ruling on November 3, 2025. The Court unequivocally ruled against the practice of denying students the right to sit for semester examinations solely based on attendance shortfalls.
The case closure comes after nearly a decade of consideration following the tragedy involving Sushant Rohilla, a student at Amity Law School, who allegedly took his life after being barred from exams due to low attendance.
Court Sayings:
The Delhi High Court delivered several powerful statements reflecting its humane approach and its intent to modernize education rules in alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020:
On Barring Students (The Interim Direction):
In a direct interim order issued while the Bar Council of India (BCI) conducts consultations, the Court directed that:
- keeping in mind the debilitating impact on students at detention or non appearance in exams due to mandatory attendance requirements can have, while the consultations by the BCI are underway, in the interregnum, it is directed as under, no student enrolled in any recognized law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance“.
- “No law college university or institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms which are over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI“.
On the Goal of Education vs. Punishment:
Highlighting the philosophical shift required in academic discipline, the Court stated:
- “The goal of legal education is to cultivate learning, not punishment. Colleges must adopt student-centric solutions instead of resorting to extreme disciplinary measures such as exam detention,” the judgment noted.
On Mental Health and Tragedy:
Addressing the human cost of rigid rules, the Bench observed:
- “Attendance requirements in law schools should not become instruments of distress. Even if attendance deficiency was not the sole factor behind Sushant Rohilla’s death, the loss of a young life can never be justified in the name of academic discipline“.
On Voluntary Participation vs. Rigid Norms:
The Court critiqued the current reliance on mandatory attendance to ensure engagement:
- “attendance ought to be achieved by voluntary participation, rather than by imposing rigid norms“.
- The Court further noted that lectures that are engrossing automatically attract students.
On Penalties for Attendance Shortage (The Alternative):
Instead of detaining students, the Court prescribed a clear grading penalty:
- “The student shall be permitted to take the semester exam. However, in the final result, the grade of the student would be permitted to be reduced by a maximum of 5% in case of marks being awarded, and by 0.33% in case of CGPA system being followed. Merely on shortage of attendance, promotion to the next semester shall not be withheld,” the Court held.
On the Representation of Students in Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs):
Regarding the newly mandated GRCs, the Court insisted on active student involvement:
- “There must be full time representation of students,” the Court added.
Key Directions Issued by the High Court:
- Mandatory Review: The BCI must “undertake a reevaluation of the mandatory attendance norms” for the three-year and five-year LLB courses in line with NEP 2020 and UGC regulations, which prioritize flexibility.
- Credit for Practical Work: The BCI “shall incorporate modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot court seminars, Parliament debates, attending court hearings”.
- Proactive Measures: Colleges must immediately implement accelerative measures, including weekly notification of attendance via an online portal or mobile app, and monthly notice to parents/legal guardians regarding any shortage.
- GRCs: All educational institutions must constitute Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs) in line with UGC regulations.
- Counselling: The BCI was directed to amend affiliation conditions to ensure the appointment of adequate numbers of counselors and psychologists in GRCs.
The Ongoing Attendance Controversy
The Delhi High Court’s ruling follows recent, highly publicized events, including protests at Delhi University’s Faculty of Law in May 2025, where over 150 law students were denied admit cards for failing to meet the mandatory 75% attendance rule. Students protesting the enforcement of the rule cited poor transparency, harsh timing of enforcement (right before exams), and the necessity of adjusting rules due to post-pandemic hybrid learning models. Student leaders had previously accused the administration of being “inhuman” and “irresponsible”.
The judgment underscores that while “academic discipline” is necessary, mandatory attendance norms should be relooked at and modified in the context of NEP 2020, which stresses multi-disciplinary study and flexibility.
Case Title : Diary No. – 28694/2016
IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF AMITY UNIVERSITY ON WP (CRL) 120/2016
