Delhi High Court Judgment: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance

Big Win for Students: Delhi HC Rules No Law Student Can Be Barred From Exams for Low Attendance

A New Era for Law Students: Delhi HC Says "No" to Barring from Exams for Low Attendance

Let's be honest: for decades, every law student in India has lived with one common fear. It's not just the fear of tough exams or finding the right case law. It's the fear of the attendance sheet.

That strict 70% or 75% minimum attendance rule, mandated by the Bar Council of India (BCI), has been a source of immense stress, anxiety, and pressure for students. We've all heard stories, or maybe even experienced it—missing classes for a moot court, a debate, an internship, or a personal or family medical emergency, and then staring at a notice that says "Detained from Exams."

This system has been blamed for causing severe mental health crises, and in one tragic case, it led to a 9-year legal battle.

Now, in a landmark and truly game-changing judgment, the Delhi High Court has stepped in. On November 3, 2025, the court delivered a judgment that puts student well-being and holistic learning above rigid, inflexible rules.

Now, in a historic and game-changing decision, the Delhi High Court has intervened. On November 3, 2025, the court issued a decision that prioritises student well-being and holistic learning over strict, inflexible restrictions.

What's the bottom line? No law institution or university in India can detain or prevent a student from sitting semester exams only because of a lack of attendance.

This is a huge win for students nationwide. Let's go over what this judgement says, why it was issued, and what it implies for you.

The Tragic Case That Sparked This Change

This entire legal battle began with an unimaginable tragedy. The judgment is titled Courts on its Own Motion IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA

Who Was Sushant Rohilla?

Sushant Rohilla was a good B.A.LL.B. student at Amity Law School, which was previously connected with GGSIPU in Delhi. He was described as an engaged student, Debating Society convener, and mentor for junior moot court participants.

In 2016, he was arrested and forced to retake an academic year because he failed to meet the university's 75% attendance requirement. The academics and administration allegedly harassed him on a constant basis. On August 10, 2016, Sushant committed suicide.

How the Court Got Involved:

Sushant's buddy filed a letter to the Chief Justice of India, stating that his incarceration and harassment forced him to take such drastic measures. The Supreme Court heard the case and, in 2017, referred it to the Delhi High Court, asking it to determine on its merits.

While the dispute involving Sushant's family and the law school was eventually resolved outside of court, the Delhi High Court did not close it. It recognised that this tragedy reflected a much wider, systemic issue.

The Court decided to continue the petition to address two major issues impacting all students.

Mandatory attendance requirements.
The lack of effective Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) in colleges.

The court named this ongoing effort the 'Sushant Rohilla Intervention'

to ensure that no other student would have to go through this.

The Court's Landmark Ruling on Attendance

After 9 years of hearings, the Delhi High Court issued a final judgement harshly criticising the rigid attendance regime.

The Core Directive:

No student can be barred from exams.
This is the most critical component of the decision. The Court has ordered, as an interim measure, that

"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;"

This is a clear and binding order. For the time being, the "detained" list due to a lack of attendance is obsolete.

Why did the court call BCI's rule "inflexible"?

The Court stated that BCI's Rule 12, which requires 70% attendance and allows for a modest 5% exemption in "exceptional" instances, is "extremely strict," "inflexible," and "extremely non-pragmatic."

The Court's rationale was compelling.

It Causes Mental Trauma: The judgement frequently notes that such severe standards, with the extreme consequence of detention, have a "debilitating impact," harm mental health, and can lead to "dramatic steps such as suicides."

It contradicts the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The Court recognised that the NEP 2020 emphasises flexibility, transdisciplinary study, and online/blended learning. The NEP makes no mention of mandatory attendance for students. The BCI's rigorous rule is completely against the spirit of modern education.

It defeats "holistic" legal education. The Court expertly explained that legal education has three dimensions:

Learning the law (by classroom lectures).
Application: Learning to use the law (mock courts, debates, seminars).
Implementation: Witnessing the law in operation (internships, court visits, legal assistance clinics). The Court held that a strict attendance policy pushes students to pick (1) over (2) and (3), which undermines the fundamental goal of producing well-rounded, practical lawyers.

A New System: What Replaces the "Bar from Exam" Rule?

So, if you can't be barred, does that mean you can just stop going to class? No.

The Court has replaced the "detention" punishment with a system of "ameliorative measures" (ways to make up for it) and a much softer consequence.

Ameliorative Measures: Your College Must Do This Now.

The Delhi High Court has ordered that all law institutions must immediately implement the following measures to assist students, rather than simply punishing them:

Better Communication:

Weekly attendance notifications are sent via an online portal or mobile app. This means no more unexpected "detained" lists at the end of the semester. You may monitor your attendance sheet in real time.
Notify your parents or guardians once a month if you are absent.

How to Make Up for Lost Time:

Colleges must provide additional classes (physical or online) for students who are falling behind.
In the event of a shortage, you may be assigned home assignments to complete.
You can be asked to do practical work in legal aid clinics or similar bodies, which can cover your attendance shortage during the semester itself.

The New and Softer "Consequence"

What if, despite everything, you fall short of the minimum attendance requirement at the end of the semester?

Here's the revolutionary part: the college cannot still prevent you from taking the exam.

Instead, the judgement states:

"The student shall be permitted to take the semester examination, however, in the final result for the semester, the grade of the student would be permitted to be reduced by a maximum of 5%, in case of marks being awarded and by 0.33% in case of the CGPA system being followed."

This is the new "punishment." It's a minor reduction in your final grade for that semester. You will not be held back, you will not lose a year, and you will not be barred from promotion to the next semester.

This shifts the focus from a life-altering punishment (detention) to a small, proportional academic consequence, which is fair and removes the source of extreme stress.

A Big Blow to "Big Brother": Court STOPS Biometric Attendance & CCTV

You may have heard of a BCI circular dated September 24, 2024, which caused even more concern. This circular required all law colleges to implement biometric attendance systems and CCTV cameras in classrooms to monitor pupils.

The Delhi High Court examined this and, in a single sentence, halted it totally.

The court ordered that this BCI circular "shall not be given effect to." This is a significant victory for student privacy and a fight against "Big Brother" surveillance in the classroom.

Beyond Attendance: Strengthening Student Grievance Committees (GRCs)

The Court did not just stop at attendance. It also addressed the second main issue: institutions' complete failure to offer a safe environment for students to express their issues.

The decision said that most Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) are inefficient. According to the current UGC regulations (2023), a student representative is just a "special invitee".

The Court has issued stern directions to remedy this:

Students Must Have a Real Voice: The Court urged the UGC to consider changing its regulations to guarantee that students are full-time members, accounting for at least 50% of the GRC, rather than "special invitees."
Mandatory Counsellors: The Court ruled that GRCs have access to a panel of counsellors and therapists and consult with them on a regular basis.
Better Representation: The GRCs must have adequate representation for female, male, and other-gender students.

What This Judgment Means for You (The Student)

This decision is more than simply a new rule. This is a complete departure in the idea of legal education in India.

You Are Now a "Stakeholder": The BCI has been ordered to re-evaluate its whole attendance policy, and this time, it must hold a "stakeholder consultation" with students, student organisations, and parents.
Internships Get a Boost: The Court acknowledged that students (particularly those from non-legal backgrounds or in rural places) struggle to secure excellent internships. It reaffirmed its previous guarantee and asked the BCI and State Bar Councils to publish an updated list of senior advocates, law firms, and organisations that are willing to accept interns per city.
Focus on Learning, Not Just "Presence": This decision finally recognises that learning law occurs in the library, moot court, internship, and debate hall, not just in the lecture. It favours voluntary involvement over forced attendance.

FAQ Section

Q1: What is the new Delhi High Court ruling on attendance for law students?

Ans: The Delhi High Court ruled on November 3, 2025, that no law student in India can be detained or barred from taking their semester exams due to a shortage of attendance.

Q2: What was the case that led to this judgment?

Ans: The case was taken up by the court suo motu (on its own motion) following the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who was detained from exams in 2016 due to low attendance. The court's ongoing efforts were named the 'Sushant Rohilla Intervention'.

Q3: What is the new consequence for poor attendance, aside from being disqualified from exams?

Ans: Instead of detention, colleges can now drop a student's final mark for that semester by up to 5% (or 0.33 in the CGPA system) if they continue to fail to satisfy attendance rules after all "ameliorative measures" (such as extra classes) have been implemented.

Q4: Did the Delhi High Court address biometric attendance and CCTV in classrooms?

Ans: Yes. The High Court said that the Bar Council of India (BCI) circular (dated September 24, 2024) mandating biometric attendance and CCTV cameras in classrooms "shall not be given effect to."

This decision, stemming from the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla, has left an indelible and constructive effect on legal education. It transforms the system from one of fear and punishment to one of cooperation, adaptability, and, most importantly, humanity.

Written By Ayush Agrawal

Ayush Agrawal holds LL.B. (Hons.) degree, with a background in Bachelor of Commerce. He has over 2 years of legal experience specializing in contract drafting, intellectual property, legal research, and client communication. Skilled in statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and managing confidential legal matters, Ayush is committed to supporting legal teams in civil, criminal, IP, and corporate law with accuracy, efficiency, and professionalism.

LAWYUSH

Advertisement

LAWYUSH

Delhi High Court Judgment: Law Students Can’t Be Barred from Exams for Low Attendance