The Delhi High Court has ruled that law students cannot be stopped from taking exams or advancing to the next semester due to low attendance, issuing landmark guidelines to reform legal education and protect student welfare nationwide.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment aimed at reforming legal education across India, the Delhi High Court has issued comprehensive guidelines regulating attendance norms and student welfare in law colleges.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manoj Jain underscored that no law student can be barred from taking semester exams or withheld from progressing to the next semester due to attendance shortage, a move seen as a significant relief for thousands of law students nationwide.
ALSO READ: Justice System Must Stand Firmly With Every Woman: CJI-Designate Surya Kant
The Court made it clear that attendance norms beyond those prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) are not permissible. Colleges and universities cannot impose arbitrary attendance requirements that exceed the BCI’s regulations.
Instead of detaining students, the Bench ruled that institutions may impose only minor academic penalties, up to a 5% reduction in marks or 0.33% in CGPA, depending on the evaluation system.
To ensure better communication and accountability, the Court directed all law colleges to notify students and their parents about attendance status regularly. Furthermore, extra physical or online classes must be arranged for those falling short of attendance, helping students make up the deficit without facing punitive consequences.
In a first-of-its-kind directive, the Bench ordered that all law colleges and universities must constitute Grievance Redressal Commissions (GRCs). Importantly, 51% of GRC members must be students, ensuring that students have a real voice in addressing institutional issues.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has been instructed to amend its regulations accordingly to reflect this change.
“There must be full-time representation of students,”
the Court emphasized.
Bar Council of India (BCI) to Reform Legal Education Standards
The Court also called upon the Bar Council of India to strengthen its oversight of legal education by:
- Including the number of counselors and psychiatrists as part of a college’s affiliation requirements.
- Re-evaluating the mandatory attendance requirement in three-year and five-year LL.B. programs.
- Incorporating moot courts and practical components into the attendance credit system.
- Creating a centralized platform to help law students—especially those from underprivileged backgrounds—find internships by publishing opportunities offered by senior advocates, law firms, and legal organizations.
ALSO READ: Stay Curious and Never Stop Learning: CJI-Designate Justice Surya Kant to Young Lawyers
Background
The suo motu proceedings stemmed from the tragic 2017 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity University’s BA LLB program. Rohilla allegedly faced harassment and was made to repeat an academic year due to low attendance, a situation that reportedly pushed him to take his own life.
The Delhi High Court took cognizance of the issue to prevent such tragedies in the future. The Bench commended Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, who served as amicus curiae, and Rohilla’s family, acknowledging their perseverance in seeking justice.
“They [Rohilla’s family and friends] have exhibited enormous resilience and deserve credit for fighting the cause,”
the Court observed.
Case Title:
Courts on its own motion in re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of IP University
W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16639/2017, 8850/2024
