New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned an LLM student’s plea to stay the MNLU Aurangabad convocation scheduled for November 1, 2026, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarking that the dispute was an academic matter best left to academics, though he said the plea would be listed. The student, Ankita Sonawale, appeared in person and sought to halt the convocation of Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar), over a dispute about a special examination she says she is entitled to take [Ankita Jagannath Sonawale v. Maharashtra National Law University].
The matter was mentioned before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The case title used here is descriptive, as the formal title, case number and the other members of the Bench were not available at the time of writing.
Background
The plea is rooted in the long-running dispute over attendance rules for law students. On November 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court disposed of a suo motu case, which began after the 2016 death of law student Sushant Rohilla who had allegedly been barred from his semester examinations for short attendance, and held that law students should not be detained from examinations or held back in their academic progress for lacking minimum attendance. It also asked the Bar Council of India to revisit attendance norms and directed institutions to set up grievance redressal committees.
The Bar Council of India and others challenged that ruling. On May 26, 2026, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stayed paragraph 249 of the High Court judgment, which carried the attendance directions, and made the stay effective prospectively. On July 21, 2026, in Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India and connected matters, a three-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan granted interim relief as a one-time measure, holding that students whose academic session was running when the High Court ruled could not be kept out of final examinations for attendance shortfall, and that those who missed their finals must be allowed to take the supplementary examinations for that session.
The Court reserved its verdict on the appeals on October 6, 2026.
Sonawale’s own dispute with the university has already been before the Bombay High Court. She had challenged MNLU’s decision barring her from the second-semester LL.M. examination for not meeting the mandatory attendance requirement under the Maharashtra National Law University Regulations, 2020, and her writ petition was dismissed on April 30, 2026. A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar later dismissed her review application, which had also sought an order for a special examination, holding that “an appeal under the disguise of review should not be entertained”.
The Bench recorded that 75 per cent attendance is mandatory, with relaxation to 67 per cent on valid medical grounds, and declined to impose costs as she was a student. Details of the special leave petition now pending before the Supreme Court were not available.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Appeals Against Removal Of Mandatory Attendance For Law Students
What the student told the Court
When CJI Surya Kant asked when the convocation was and why it should be stayed, Sonawale said it was fixed for November 1 and would formally conclude the university’s 2025-26 postgraduate academic year.
She told the Bench that she had obtained a remedy in the Prakruthi Jain matter that required a special examination to be held for her, and that she had relied on the Sushant Rohilla judgment before it was stayed with prospective effect.
According to her submissions, the university’s “administrative silence” since August 2026 has kept her from taking the examination. She argued that if the convocation went ahead on November 1, her special leave petition would be rendered meaningless and she would be left with an injury that could not be compensated.
CJI Calls It An Academic Matter
CJI Surya Kant told Sonawale that she was a young lawyer with a long career ahead of her, including arguing before Constitution Benches, and questioned why the Court should be asked to decide whether a convocation should be held at all.
The Chief Justice said such matters concern academia and lie within the domain of academic jurists and professors, and asked why the Court should interfere.
ALSO READ: An Appeal Under Disguise of Review Should Not Be Entertained: Bombay HC Rejects LL.M Student’s Plea
Plea to be listed
In reply, Sonawale argued that the order in the Prakruthi Jain matter binds the university under Articles 142 and 144 of the Constitution. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders for doing complete justice, and Article 144 requires all civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice did not stay the convocation, saying only:
It will be listed.
No order staying the convocation was passed. The university’s response to the plea was not available, and the date of listing is yet to be known.
Case Title: Ankita Jagannath Sonawale v. Maharashtra National Law University (descriptive)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led Bench
Date: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Ankita Sonawale, petitioner-in-person
Click Here to Follow LawChakra on YouTube
If you or someone you know is struggling or having thoughts of self-harm, please reach out to Tele-MANAS on 14416 or 1-800-891-4416 for free, confidential support, 24×7.