The Supreme Court of India expressed concern over a Delhi High Court ruling allowing law students with attendance shortages to appear in examinations, observing that such interpretation could weaken classroom-based legal education and turn law college hostels into “just boarding and lodging facilities”.
The Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over a 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court which held that law students cannot be prevented from appearing in examinations solely due to shortage of attendance. The apex court observed that such an interpretation could undermine the very purpose of classroom-based legal education and reduce law college hostels into “just boarding and lodging facilities”.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi agreed to examine the correctness of the High Court ruling while issuing notice on a plea filed by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS).
ALSO READ: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance: Delhi High Court
At the same time, the Supreme Court declined to stay the operation of the High Court judgment at this stage.
The Bench observed,
“We are not suspending that order. We will hear the matter, decide and lay down the correct position of law,”
Appearing for NMIMS, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the Delhi High Court verdict had effectively diluted attendance requirements and created serious complications for legal education institutions across the country.
Rohatgi submitted before the Court,
“The high court says no attendance is required anywhere. People don’t want to go to colleges. I am wondering why we went to college then,”
The petition challenging the Delhi High Court judgment was filed through Advocate Kanu Agrawal.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court appeared broadly in agreement with the concerns raised by the institution. The Bench remarked that if the interpretation adopted by the High Court were accepted, hostels of National Law Universities would become “just boarding and lodging facilities”, with students having little incentive to physically attend classes.
The matter has now been tagged with a batch of pending petitions challenging circulars issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Those petitions relate to mandatory disclosures regarding criminal background, simultaneous academic pursuits and compliance with attendance requirements for law students.
The controversy originates from a November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which ruled that students enrolled in recognised law colleges or universities could not be detained from appearing in examinations or progressing academically merely because of inadequate attendance.
That judgment had emerged from proceedings linked to the 2016 suicide of a law student, where allegations were made regarding harassment over attendance shortages. While dealing with the matter, the High Court had observed that attendance rules should not be enforced so rigidly that they inflict mental distress on students or contribute to extreme consequences.
The High Court had also directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider mandatory attendance requirements for three-year and five-year LLB courses in light of the National Education Policy 2020 and changing educational practices.
Relying on the division bench ruling, a single judge of the Delhi High Court had subsequently granted relief earlier this year to several University of Delhi law students who were either barred from taking examinations or had their results withheld due to shortage of attendance.
Before the Supreme Court, NMIMS argued that the Delhi High Court ruling had opened “floodgates” of litigation by students seeking permission to sit for examinations despite not fulfilling minimum attendance requirements. According to the institution, the judgment undermined academic discipline and interfered with institutional autonomy.
The plea further stressed that classroom teaching continues to remain a crucial component of legal education, particularly in integrated five-year law programmes where students join immediately after school. It argued that lectures, tutorials, moot court exercises and practical training cannot be completely replaced through internships, competitions or co-curricular activities.
The petition also referred to Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, which prescribes a minimum attendance requirement of 70%, while permitting limited condonation up to 65% in exceptional cases.
NMIMS additionally relied on practices followed in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore to argue that mandatory attendance norms are internationally recognised as an essential aspect of professional legal training.
Notably, the Supreme Court had already expressed concern over the Delhi High Court ruling during an earlier hearing on May 7 in the pending challenge to BCI circulars. At that stage, the Bench led by Justice Nath had remarked that the judgment had created “chaos” and raised concerns for National Law Universities across the country.
The Bench had observed,
“Students are not going to the classes… NLUs are known for their good faculty… if the students do not attend, what’s the point?”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES