In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared that no law college or university in India shall bar students from appearing in examinations on the grounds of attendance shortage. The decision comes nearly nine years after the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla, a third-year student of Amity Law School, who died by suicide after being prevented from sitting for his semester exams due to insufficient attendance.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma emphasized that attendance policies in educational institutions, especially law colleges, must not be so stringent that they inflict mental distress on students.

The court observed:

“Attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent that it leads to mental trauma or death.”

Background

The suo motu petition, originally initiated by the Supreme Court and later transferred to the High Court, was based on the unfortunate demise of Sushant Rohilla in 2016. The case brought to light the emotional and academic pressures faced by students. Although the criminal proceedings between Rohilla’s family and Amity Law School were settled out of court last year, the issue continued to raise questions about student welfare and institutional accountability.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

In its 122-page order, the Delhi High Court issued comprehensive directions to ensure that educational institutions adopt a more student-friendly approach:

  • No student shall be barred from examinations or academic progression due to shortage of attendance.
  • Institutions are prohibited from setting attendance requirements higher than those prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
  • All BCI-approved law colleges must publish weekly attendance updates through an online portal or mobile application.
  • Institutions are required to notify parents or guardians monthly regarding attendance deficiencies.
  • Additional physical or online classes must be provided for students unable to meet the minimum attendance requirements.
  • If attendance remains below the prescribed level, penalties should be limited to grade reduction, not disqualification from exams.

Focus on Mental Well-being and Institutional Reform

The court underscored the need for educational reforms that prioritize mental health. Even if attendance shortage was not the sole cause of Sushant Rohilla’s death, the bench noted that institutional rigidity should never lead to such tragic consequences.

“Sushant Rohilla has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space,” the bench stated.

Highlighting several similar incidents over the years, the court observed that mental health crises arising from rigid attendance norms and academic pressure require immediate institutional attention.

Directive to the Bar Council of India

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has been directed to re-evaluate mandatory attendance norms for law students and implement long-term reforms promoting mental well-being and flexibility in education. The ruling aims to create a more balanced academic environment where discipline and empathy coexist.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling marks a significant shift towards student welfare in legal education, ensuring that administrative policies align with principles of compassion and inclusivity. This judgment serves as a reminder to all educational institutions to maintain mental health safeguards and avoid rigid practices that could harm students’ well-being or academic growth.