SC of India stays Delhi HC order on law students’ attendance rules
The Supreme Court of India stayed a Delhi High Court order that barred law colleges from stopping students with low attendance from appearing in exams. The apex court observed that national law universities were suffering due to poor attendance and sought responses in related pleas
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Delhi High Court order that prohibited law colleges and universities from barring students from appearing in exams for failing to meet the minimum attendance requirement, as it observed that all national law universities were “suffering”. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing pleas, including the one filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI), challenging the high court’s November 2025 verdict.
While posting the pleas for hearing on July 21, the bench said, “In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgement shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively”.
The high court had passed directions with respect to attendance norms in paragraph 249 of its verdict. The top court also made it clear that pendency of these pleas before it would not preclude the high courts, where similar petitions concerning attendance were pending, from deciding those matters.
During the hearing, the bench asked senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, who is also the Chairman of the BCI, as to why it took them almost six months to challenge the high court judgment.
“All the NLUs (National Law University) are suffering,” the bench observed, adding that students do not want mandatory attendance.
The bench said the Delhi High Court’s judgment does not preclude students from attending classes.
It observed what the teachers at NLUs and other universities would do if the students do not attend classes. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in the matter, said the high court’s verdict should be stayed.
“Does the judgment give a right to the students not to go to the classes,” the bench said and issued notice to the BCI’s plea, while tagging it with pending pleas raising similar issue.
In its verdict, the high court had said, “No student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance”.
The high court had also asked the BCI to undertake a re-evaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three-year and five-year LLB courses. On May 13, the top court agreed to hear a plea challenging the high court verdict.
The apex court had observed that if such a position were to be accepted, the hostels of NLUs and law colleges could become “just boarding and lodging facilities”. The high court had said it was of the strong view that attendance norms for education in general and legal education in particular cannot be made so stringent that they lead to mental trauma, let alone the death of a student.
It had delivered the judgment while disposing of a suo motu petition, initiated by the Supreme Court and transferred to the high court, in relation to the death of law student Sushant Rohilla by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance.
Rohilla, a third-year law student, had hanged himself at his home here on August 10, 2016, after his college allegedly barred him from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance. He left behind a note, saying he was a failure and did not wish to live.
The high court had directed that it would be mandatory for all educational institutions and universities to constitute grievance redressal committees (GRCs) in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2023.
Observing that GRCs were for safeguarding the interests of students, including their mental health, it had directed the UGC to initiate consultations and consider amending the UGC regulations.
The high court had said the BCI should incorporate the modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates and attending court hearings.
It had added that no law college, university or institution should be permitted to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.
