Reforming Attendance Norms in Indian Law Schools

Context

1. The Delhi High Court’s 2025 judgment in “In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla” examined how universities, especially law schools, should enforce attendance rules.
2. The case stemmed from the 2016 suicide of a law student who was barred from exams due to attendance shortage.
3. The Court turned the incident into a public-interest inquiry into whether attendance norms are fair, proportionate, and consistent with constitutional values.

What is the Case About?

1. The issue before the Court was not the attendance requirement itself, but the manner of its enforcement.
2. Many universities debarred students below the required attendance without:
   1. Prior warning or counselling,
   2. Giving students a chance to explain, or
   3. Considering medical or mental health issues.
3. The Court held that such mechanical enforcement violated procedural fairness under Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).

Why Does the Case Matters?

1. The judgment emphasized that universities, while autonomous, are public authorities bound by constitutional discipline.
2. Their decisions must:
   1. Be reasoned, just, and proportionate.
   2. Respect the mental well-being and dignity of students.
3. Thus, attendance enforcement must ensure fairness, transparency, and compassion, aligning educational governance with constitutional morality.

How the Court Interpreted Attendance Rules?

1. The Court upheld the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) Rule 12 under the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which mandates 70% attendance, relaxable to 65% in special cases.
2. However, it called the rule “extremely strict” and urged the BCI to reconsider it in light of:
   1. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, promoting flexibility and learner-centric education.
   2. The UGC Regulations, 2003, which focus on student welfare and inclusivity.
3. The Court held that rigid enforcement could make attendance an exclusionary barrier, especially for students facing genuine hardship.

What Universities Must Now Follow?

Post-judgment, universities are required to follow fair and transparent procedures before debarment:

1. Regular updates of attendance through online portals or notice boards.
2. Monthly shortage notices to students and parents for early action.
3. Counselling sessions and opportunities to make up shortfalls via:
   1. Extra classes or assignments,
   2. Recognised academic activities (moots, legal-aid work, internships, etc.).
4. Recording valid reasons like health or family emergencies.
5. Notice and opportunity to respond before final debarment.

Only after these remedial steps can a student be lawfully debarred.

Implications

1. Institutional: Universities must adopt structured grievance redressal mechanisms with student representation.
2. Cultural: Shift from punishment to support, fostering a compassionate academic environment.
3. Pedagogical: Attendance should encourage participation, not serve as policing.
4. Regulatory: The BCI must revisit Rule 12 to align with NEP 2020 and ensure that no law school imposes stricter norms than prescribed.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Sushant Rohilla judgment marks a landmark shift in linking higher education with constitutional fairness and student welfare. Law schools must move from rigid attendance policing to a flexible, empathetic, and learner-centric model, ensuring that education remains inclusive, humane, and constitutionally guided.