SC stays Delhi HC ruling against barring law students over attendance shortage

THe sublime margaret court on tues suspended the functioning of a new delhi High Court judgment which had held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely on the ground of insufficient attendance, observing that law colleges across the country were “suffering” because of the ruling.A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against the November 2025 judgment of the Delhi high court.“Issue notice returnable on July 21. In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively,” ordered the bench.During the hearing, the court remarked that the consequences of the high court ruling were being felt by law institutions, particularly National Law Universities (NLUs), with students increasingly resisting mandatory attendance requirements.“All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,” observed the bench.The court also questioned the delay on the part of the BCI in approaching the apex court against the judgment. “Why did you come so late?” the bench asked.BCI chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra acknowledged the delay and described it as a lapse on the part of the regulatory body.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in a connected matter, argued that the Delhi High Court judgment had virtually rewarded indiscipline among students. “They are not going to colleges,” Rohatgi submitted.Also Read:‘Bolt out of the blue’: How Turkey-based Celebi described Centre’s security clearance action in Delhi HCThe bench, while interacting with counsel, observed that the high court ruling appeared to have gone beyond interpretation and entered the legislative domain. “Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to colleges? The high court has legislated literally,” it remarked.The November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court had held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or from academic progression merely because of shortage of attendance.The ruling arose out of proceedings linked to the alleged suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla in 2017 at Amity University. Allegations were raised that Rohilla had been subjected to harassment over low attendance and forced to repeat an academic year in the BA LLB course, which allegedly contributed to his suicide.The high court had observed that attendance regulations should not be enforced with such rigidity that they result in mental distress or extreme consequences for students. It also directed the BCI to revisit mandatory attendance requirements for three-year and five-year law courses in light of the National Education Policy, 2020 and evolving educational frameworks.However, the ruling triggered a series of challenges before the Supreme Court from law colleges and institutions across the country, which argued that the judgment had severely undermined academic discipline and institutional autonomy.On May 13, while hearing a plea by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), the Supreme Court had already expressed serious reservations about the Delhi high court ruling. At that stage, the Justice Nath-led bench had observed that accepting such a position could reduce law college hostels into “just boarding and lodging facilities”.The bench had then remarked that if students were no longer required to attend classes, there would be little purpose in maintaining institutions known for quality classroom teaching and faculty engagement.NMIMS, in its petition, contended that the Delhi High Court ruling had opened “floodgates” of litigation by students seeking permission to appear in examinations despite not meeting minimum attendance requirements. The institution argued that lectures, tutorials, moot court exercises, practical training and classroom interaction remain integral to legal education, particularly in integrated five-year law programmes where students enrol immediately after school. The plea also relied on 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.