In a landmark ruling concerning minimum attendance law students, the Delhi High Court has clarified that no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution in India may be detained from taking examinations or restricted from further academic progress solely on the ground of failing to meet minimum attendance norms.

A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma held that the mandate of attendance norms beyond the minimum percentage prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) is impermissible.

The Court observed that while attendance is desirable, in the context of legal education, rigid physical‐attendance requirements can cause undue stress, adversely affect student mental health, and may contribute to tragic outcomes including suicide.

The case arose from proceedings initiated suo motu in connection with the suicide of a student of the Amity Law School, Delhi in 2016, allegedly subjected to pressure due to shortage of attendance.

The Court noted that legal education is not confined to classroom attendance alone. It emphasised the need for holistic learning, encompassing moot courts, seminars, legal‐aid clinics, court hearings and other practical experiences, and held that attendance norms must evolve accordingly.

In light of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) and the University Grants Commission regulations, the Court directed institutions to reconsider mandatory physical attendance and instead adopt flexible mechanisms aligned with modern pedagogical practices.

With immediate effect, the Bench mandated that all BCI‐recognised law colleges and universities must:

• Provide weekly notification of student attendance through online portals or mobile apps;
• Monthly notify parents or legal guardians regarding any attendance deficit;
• Conduct supplementary physical or online classes for students with attendance shortfall.
• Assign additional home assignments, rigorous legal aid clinic work, or similar experiential tasks to offset attendance deficits;
• Calculate attendance only on actual classes held; if students still fall short at semester end, they must not be barred from sitting the examination. In such cases:
  Their result may at most face a reduction of 5 % in marks, or 0.33 % in CGPA system, but promotion to next semester cannot be withheld solely for attendance.

The Court further directed the BCI to initiate stakeholder consultations—including students, parents, and faculty, to review attendance norms for 3-year and 5-year LL.B courses and to suitably amend the conditions of affiliation.

It required the BCI to publish city-wise lists of internship opportunities for law students, especially from economically weaker backgrounds, remote areas or differently‐abled categories.

The Court also directed institutions to establish Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) with at least two to three student nominees and an adequate number of counsellors and psychologists, in line with UGC Regulations 2023.

Parties & Bench Details

• Petitioner: Court’s Own Motion in Re: Suicide committed by Sushant Rohilla, law student of I.P. University
• Respondents: Recognised law colleges, universities, institutions affiliated with the BCI
• Bench: Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon’ble Justice Amit Sharma
• Date of Judgment: Monday, 3 November 2025

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…