The Calcutta High Court has held that a delay by an ill student in submitting a medical certificate cannot be treated as fatal, and has directed St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata not to debar a law student from clearing her semester and moving ahead for inadequate attendance.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition by a B.Com LLB (Hons.) student, directing that she shall not be debarred on the ground of inadequate attendance from clearing her sixth semester and moving to the next, and that her withheld results be published. The Court held that the authorities erred in refusing attendance adjustment on serious medical grounds merely because the medical certificate was late. [Rhine Ghosh v. St. Xavier’s University and Another]
A Single Bench of Justice Jay Sengupta delivered the judgment on 29 September 2026 after hearing the matter on 7 July 2026.
Background
The petitioner was a sixth-semester student of the B.Com LLB (Hons.) course for the academic year 2023-24. The University required 75 per cent aggregate attendance, with condonation available for shortfalls between 65 and 74 per cent under Regulation 3.4.2, and a medical certificate to be submitted within 15 days of rejoining. Her attendance was 63.76 per cent, and she was debarred from the sixth-semester examination.
She was diagnosed with chickenpox on 6 February 2024 and advised 14 days of isolation, and also relied on other medical documents. She further said that her father’s death in the preceding year had caused financial hardship, which required her to take up part-time work. She sought condonation on 9, 10 and 13 May 2024, shortly before the examinations began on 15 May 2024.
ALSO READ: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance: Delhi High Court
Petitioner’s case
The petitioner contended that debarment for inadequate attendance was unjust in view of her medical condition, and that the University had applied its condonation rules inconsistently in violation of Article 14, since other students with attendance below 65 per cent had been granted condonation.
What the Court said
On the lateness of the medical papers, the Court drew a distinction between prior permission and a medical certificate issued by an independent professional.
“…a delay on the part of a student afflicted by illness in either making a leave application or providing a medical certificate beyond time cannot be treated as fatal.”
“However, she cannot be denied attendance adjustment for such serious infection only on technical grounds of delay in making an application.”
“The authorities clearly erred in not allowing attendance adjustments on such serious medical grounds.”
On the petitioner’s father’s death, the Court rejected the approach of treating it as a mere historical fact:
“It would be rather cruel to term it as a historical fact, especially if it had happened in the immediately preceding year.”
The Court also explained the purpose of attendance rules:
“Withholding of students from the next semester for lack of attendance cannot be a means to punish students, far less an end by itself.”
Operative directions
The Court directed that the petitioner shall not be debarred from clearing the semester in question and moving to the next on the ground of inadequate attendance; that all her examination results for that and the following semesters which were kept unpublished shall be published at the earliest; that any unevaluated papers shall be promptly evaluated; and that on completion of the course she shall receive all certificates, mark sheets and other documents without further delay. The University’s prayer for a stay of the order was rejected.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling treats a medical certificate from an independent professional as sufficient proof of illness even when it is filed late, and reminds universities that attendance rules cannot be used as a way to punish students whose absence has genuine medical or personal causes.
Case Title: Rhine Ghosh v. St. Xavier’s University and Another | W.P.A. No. 16324 of 2024 | Judgment dated 29 September 2026 | Bench: Justice Jay Sengupta
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee and Mr. Satyaki Banerjee. For the University: Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate, and Dr. R.N. Jhunjhunwala, with others.
READ JUDGEMENT: Rhine Ghosh v. St. Xavier’s University