Recently, the Delhi High Court has issued a detailed set of guidelines addressing attendance norms, student welfare, and institutional accountability. The Court observed that the rigid enforcement of attendance rules often jeopardises students’ academic progress and mental well-being, calling for a more compassionate and standardised approach.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Manoj Jain took cognisance of the systemic issues prevalent in legal education following reports that Sushant Rohilla had been subjected to severe institutional pressure due to attendance shortage, forcing him to repeat an academic year. The incident, which occurred in 2017, sparked a larger conversation on the need for reforms in attendance policies and mental health support mechanisms within educational institutions. The Court examined whether law colleges were exceeding the attendance requirements stipulated by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and how such practices impacted students’ rights and academic futures.
During the proceedings, the Bench noted submissions highlighting that several law institutions impose attendance standards far more stringent than those mandated by the BCI. These arbitrary practices, the Court observed, not only hinder students’ educational growth but also contribute to psychological distress. The lack of accessible grievance redressal mechanisms, inadequate mental health infrastructure, and limited opportunities for internships, especially for students from economically weaker backgrounds, were also pointed out as pressing challenges. The Bench acknowledged that legal education must not only ensure academic rigour but also uphold the dignity, welfare, and emotional well-being of students.
In its observations, the Court held that no student shall be barred from taking semester examinations or denied progression to the next academic term solely on account of attendance deficiency. It stated that attendance requirements must strictly adhere to the minimum norms prescribed by the BCI and that institutions cannot impose any additional or arbitrary conditions. As a limited academic measure, the Bench allowed that where colleges award marks, attendance shortage may lead to a maximum deduction of five per cent, or in the case of institutions following the CGPA system, a reduction of 0.33 per cent. The judges further directed that attendance updates must be regularly communicated to both students and their parents, and that extra classes, either in-person or online, should be arranged for those who fall short.
The Court also emphasised the need for stronger institutional support systems. It directed all universities and colleges to establish Grievance Redressal Commissions and mandated that the University Grants Commission (UGC) amend its regulations to ensure that fifty-one per cent of the members of each Grievance Redressal Commission are students. This, the Court said, would give students a direct voice in addressing academic or administrative concerns. The Bench further directed the Bar Council of India to amend its conditions for granting affiliation to law colleges, making it mandatory for each institution to have full-time counsellors and psychiatrists on staff. The Court also urged the BCI to re-evaluate the requirement of mandatory physical attendance in both three-year and five-year law courses and to give academic credit to participation in moot courts and similar practical training activities.
Another key directive from the Court concerned the accessibility of internships for law students. The Bench ordered the BCI to develop a transparent mechanism to publish information on available internship opportunities, including names of senior advocates, law firms, and organisations seeking interns. This measure, the Court noted, was particularly vital for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who often lack the professional networks needed to secure such opportunities. The Court also instructed the BCI and UGC to incorporate these reforms into their regulatory structures to ensure uniform implementation across all law institutions in the country.
While disposing of the suo motu petition, the Court made it clear that under no circumstances should students be debarred from examinations or progression for lack of attendance, beyond the limited academic penalties permitted. The Court concluded the proceedings, signalling a major shift towards a more student-centric and empathetic framework for legal education in India.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
