[Suicide By Law Student] “Is Your Shoulder Broad Enough? Will You Pay Ex-Gratia To Family For Systemic Failure?”: Delhi HC Asks Amity

The Delhi High Court Today (Sept 9) asked Amity Law School if it will make an ex-gratia payment to the family of law student Sushant Rohilla who died by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance. Court said it was not blaming any individual for the unfortunate incident but the “shoulder” of the institution should be “broad enough” to take responsibility for the systemic failure.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court questioned Amity Law School regarding whether it would provide ex-gratia compensation to the family of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who died by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from sitting for semester exams due to insufficient attendance.

A bench led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh stated that while no individual was being blamed for the tragic incident, the institution’s “shoulder” should be “broad enough” to take responsibility for the systemic failure. The court emphasized that while addressing the failure, it was important for institutions to assume responsibility for their part in such unfortunate incidents.

While addressing the issue of mandatory attendance in higher education, the court asked the Centre to initiate stakeholder consultations within two weeks. It also directed the central government and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to issue a circular mandating that all educational institutions establish a ‘grievance redressal committee’ within two weeks or face consequences.

Sushant Rohilla, a third-year law student at Amity, died by suicide on August 10, 2016, at his home in Delhi after the college allegedly barred him from taking his semester exams due to not meeting the required attendance. He left a note stating that he felt like a failure and no longer wanted to live.

The petition, initially taken up by the Supreme Court in 2016, was transferred to the Delhi High Court in 2017. Counsel for Amity Law School maintained that the institution was not at fault, arguing that the suicide note did not blame anyone from the college.

However, the court suggested that an ex-gratia payment to the family would help “bring a closure” to some of the unresolved issues.

“Institutions should have a broader thinking. Nobody is saying one individual is responsible for this. There has been a systemic failure, for whatever reasons. If there is a systemic failure in the institution, you have to take responsibility. Your shoulders have to be broad enough to take responsibility,”

-remarked Justice Singh.

The bench, which also included Justice Amit Sharma, instructed the counsel for Amity Law School to seek instructions on whether the institution would be willing to make ex-gratia compensation. It further cautioned the institution’s lawyer against making any statements that might target the deceased student’s parents, reminding them of the immense grief they had already suffered.

During the hearing, the Bar Council of India (BCI) counsel stated that current rules require a minimum of 70% attendance for law students, but in light of mental health concerns and pressure on students, the BCI was open to considering changes to the norm, while ensuring that academic standards are maintained.

Justice Singh questioned the practicality of such rules, pointing out that many individuals pursued law degrees while being employed.

“The rule is absolutely unrealistic. This is not the truth. It is being breached by everyone. Can’t we take notice of the actual reality? It is just on paper,”

-the judge observed.

The bench also directed the BCI to provide material on the mandatory attendance policies in other countries like the UK and Australia.

The National Medical Commission (NMC) was also represented, and their counsel explained that the mandatory attendance for undergraduate medical courses is 75%, while for postgraduate courses, it is 80%.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma noted that the issue of attendance norms requires a “large consultation” with all stakeholders, including regulatory bodies like the UGC and NMC, as well as teachers and students.

Counsel for the UGC requested additional time to file its affidavit and highlighted that the new education policy offers various relaxations concerning attendance. The court granted time for the UGC to submit its affidavit and ordered both the UGC and the Ministry of Education to issue a final circular to all educational institutions, requiring the formation of grievance redressal committees within two weeks, warning that failure to do so would result in action.

Furthermore, the court directed the Ministry of Education to initiate stakeholder consultations within two weeks regarding whether attendance norms should remain mandatory for undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

The court also acknowledged the need for a reassessment of mandatory attendance policies in light of changes in teaching methods post-COVID-19. It emphasized that the mental health of students must be taken into account when considering attendance requirements and called for streamlining grievance redressal mechanisms and support systems in educational institutions.

The matter will be heard again in October.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Suicide

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES