Supreme Court of India stayed the Delhi High Court decision allowing law students to take examinations despite inadequate attendance, observing that the High Court had “legislated literally” while issuing the impugned direction in the present case.
The Supreme Court stayed a significant part of a Delhi High Court decision that had ruled that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations merely because of insufficient attendance.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a group of petitions challenging the High Court ruling, including pleas related to mandatory attendance requirements in law colleges and National Law Universities (NLUs).
The dispute traces back to a November 2025 Delhi High Court judgment.
That ruling held that no student enrolled in any recognised law college or university can be prevented from taking examinations or making academic progress solely due to inadequate attendance.
ALSO READ: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance: Delhi High Court
The judgment followed proceedings linked to the suicide of a law student, an incident that had led to wider scrutiny of attendance norms in legal education.
During today’s hearing, the Supreme Court also raised concerns about the delay by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in approaching the apex court.
The Bench noted that earlier petitions had been filed by private individuals rather than by the statutory body itself.
The Court observed while issuing notice,
“All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,”
Petitioner Prakruthi Jain further argued against the use of biometric attendance systems in law colleges. She submitted that adequate safeguards were not in place to ensure the protection and proper handling of students’ biometric data, and that the attendance process would be outsourced to private intermediaries.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that no final opinion had been formed yet on the matter and directed that educational institutions would be given an opportunity to respond.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued for the petitioners and contended that the Delhi High Court’s ruling effectively rewards students for indiscipline by enabling them to avoid attending classes. In response, the Bench asked whether the High Court judgment actually created any right for students to abstain from attending law colleges.
The Court also remarked that the High Court has legislated literally while passing the impugned order.
After hearing submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice and fixed the next date for July 21. It ordered that the operation of paragraph 249 of the Delhi High Court judgment shall remain stayed prospectively.
The Court also clarified that High Courts hearing similar attendance-related disputes would continue to be free to pass appropriate orders in pending matters.
One of the petitions, filed by NMIMS with Kanu Agrawal appearing as Amicus/Advocate-on-Record, argued that the Delhi High Court judgment undermines the regulatory scheme governing legal education under Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008.
The Rule, it was argued, prescribes a minimum attendance requirement of 70%, with only limited relaxation in exceptional circumstances. NMIMS maintained that classroom instruction remains central to legal training particularly in integrated five-year law programmes where students enter directly after school.
It added that co-curricular components such as moot courts, internships, and seminars, though valuable, cannot substitute structured classroom teaching.
On the regulatory framework, NMIMS submitted that Rule 12 made under the Advocates Act, 1961 is valid delegated legislation and can be set aside only on narrow constitutional grounds. It cautioned that removing attendance thresholds would lead to inconsistency and complicate the enforcement of academic discipline across institutions.
The plea also referred to what it described as a floodgate effect following the High Court ruling, alleging that multiple students have approached courts to bypass attendance requirements. It argued that such outcomes undermine institutional autonomy and destabilise the established structure of legal education.
At the same time, NMIMS contended that judicial directions cannot rewrite or weaken regulatory standards fixed by specialised expert bodies such as the BCI, and that courts should defer to these regulators on issues relating to academic requirements.
Case Title: Prakruthi Jain v. BCI, Keyur Akkiraju v. BCI and SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies v. Bar Council of India