Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL seeking strict enforcement of 75% attendance in MU law colleges. The Court cited lack of evidence and told the petitioner to return with proper data.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sharmila Ghuge, a faculty member of a law college, who had asked the Court to make the 75% attendance rule compulsory in all law colleges under Mumbai University (MU). The petition was dismissed because the Court found that the petitioner had not provided any clear details or evidence to support her claims.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik said that the petition could not be accepted since no particular colleges or students were named in the petition who were allegedly allowed to sit for exams without meeting the 75% attendance rule.
ALSO READ: Law Student Found Dead in Hostel Room at Gujarat National Law University
The Court stated,
“We find that the petitioner has not given any particulars of the colleges nor the students who are being allowed to appear in exams without following the mandatory attendance … Petitioner who is also an employee in a law college has not even divulged data about her own college … In absence of material particulars, we are not inclined to entertain the petition.”
When the petitioner was asked why she had not included such information, she explained that she had filed applications under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) but the authorities refused to give her the details.
The Court responded by advising her to appeal under the RTI Act, and only return to the Court once she had all the necessary evidence.
ALSO READ: Landmark Judgments on Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Every Law Student Must Know!
The Court made it clear by saying:
“This can’t be a roving enquiry.”
Even though the PIL was rejected for now, the Court gave her the option to come back later with proper documents and proof. “The bench, however, granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court again once the relevant information and material is obtained to support the allegations made.”
The PIL highlighted a growing concern that many law students in Mumbai do not attend enough classes and are still allowed to take exams. This is mainly because many students skip classes to do full-time internships at law firms or take up part-time jobs.
The petitioner claimed,
“Many students fail to meet the mandatory 75% attendance mark as stipulated by in ordinance 6086 of MU. The low attendance is primarily because of students interning with law firms or being employed while pursuing their law degrees, compounded by the lack of action on the part of law colleges and university authorities to enforce attendance requirements.”
Back in April 2024, a different bench led by then Chief Justice DK Upadhyay (who is now the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court), had asked for replies from the Mumbai University, Bar Council of India (BCI), and University Grants Commission (UGC) on the same matter.
In the PIL, the petitioner also raised serious concerns about the way students skip classes from the very beginning of the academic year.
ALSO READ: Late-Night Brawl| Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to DU Law Student
According to her data:
“In the first week of an academic year, only 50 per cent of newly admitted students attend the lectures which decreases to around 30 percent in second week and finally only 10 percent students would remain by the third week.”
She had requested the Court to direct Mumbai University to take strong steps to enforce the attendance rule strictly. She also suggested that the Bar Council of India should consider new policies to allow long-term internships in such a way that students can still attend their lectures regularly.
The PIL also asked for disciplinary action to be taken against students and colleges that break the rules regularly, and suggested that regular inspections and reviews should be done in all law colleges under Mumbai University.
This PIL brings forward an important debate in legal education about whether students should be allowed to skip classes for internships, and how colleges should handle attendance rules in a professional course like law. The Court’s decision shows that such serious issues must be backed with proper evidence and facts if one expects any judicial action.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Law Students
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
