The Delhi High Court expressed support for reducing the mandatory 70% attendance requirement for law courses. The court suggested that the baseline attendance could be lowered, reflecting a more flexible approach. This move could have significant implications for law students, particularly those balancing studies with other commitments.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court expressed support for reducing the mandatory baseline attendance requirement of 70% for law courses and requested the Bar Council of India (BCI) to provide its perspective on the issue.
A bench consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma noted that it is common for students to intern with lawyers to enhance their learning experience, and classes are often cancelled due to faculty absences.
The judges emphasized that the BCI, as the regulatory authority, should consider the actual conditions in the field of law when establishing attendance rules.
The bench remarked,
“The baseline could be 40%. (The remaining) can be supplemented with certificates from advocates they are working with. Most classes end by 1 or 2 PM, allowing for hands-on learning. The baseline should be lower. You can’t prevent students from taking exams in any case,”
The court also raised concerns about a BCI circular that mandates the use of biometrics and CCTV for tracking law students’ attendance, describing it as “completely far from reality.” It stated that any attendance requirement that could bar a student from exams is against their best interests and requested the BCI to justify the increase in the baseline attendance from 66% to 70%.
The court questioned,
“The regulator must consider what the students want and be aware of the realities on the ground. There must be a justification for this increase. Why is it set at 70%?”
The BCI instructed to review the potential reduction in baseline attendance for both three-year and five-year law programs. This discussion arises from the tragic case of law student Sushant Rohilla, who died by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from taking his semester exams due to insufficient attendance.
Rohilla, a third-year student at Amity University, took his own life on August 10, 2016, after being reportedly denied exam access because of attendance issues. The Supreme Court initiated a petition in September 2016 following this incident, which was later transferred to the high court in March 2017.
The court previously indicated that there is an urgent need to reassess mandatory attendance norms in colleges and universities, especially since teaching methods have significantly evolved since the COVID-19 pandemic.
It emphasized the importance of considering students’ mental health and the need to improve grievance redressal mechanisms and support systems in educational institutions.
The matter scheduled for a hearing in February 2025
Read Also: Bombay HC Seeks BCI, Mumbai University Response on 75% Attendance PIL in Law Colleges
The Mandatory Attendance Baseline in law courses is a requirement established by educational institutions that mandates students to attend a specified percentage of classes to remain eligible for assessments or examinations. This practice is common in many law schools and universities, aiming to ensure that students actively engage in the learning process and the subject matter.
While the exact percentage can vary by institution, students are typically required to attend at least 75-80% of classes. Failing to meet this attendance requirement may lead to penalties, such as being barred from taking exams or losing eligibility for course credits.