Supreme Court Preserves Traditional Attendance Rules in Law Schools
On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of India intervened in an ongoing reform of legal education by staying a pivotal Delhi High Court decision. This ruling had previously determined that law students should not be barred from exams due to insufficient attendance. The Supreme Court’s move reinstates the requirement of mandatory attendance, emphasizing a return to traditional administrative norms. During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed concerns about declining classroom attendance, cautioning that without these rules, National Law University (NLU) hostels might become mere “boarding and lodging facilities.” The court’s stance reflects a binary view: physical absenteeism equates to moral and professional failure.
Addressing the Core Issue: A Flawed Educational Model
The prevailing concern over empty classrooms overlooks the underlying issue: students are not forgoing lectures due to a lack of discipline, but because the current pedagogical model is outdated. The focus on enforcing attendance through biometric tracking and exam bans overlooks a critical structural crisis. The emphasis remains on policing student behavior rather than addressing the obsolete and exclusive educational framework that fails to engage contemporary learners.
Challenges Beyond the NLU Bubble
When the Supreme Court expressed concern about the plight of all NLUs, it inadvertently spotlighted a larger systemic issue. NLUs, representing the elite echelon of legal education in India, are equipped with resources and esteemed faculty. Yet, if these institutions cannot fill their classrooms, what does this imply for the majority studying outside the NLU sphere? Most law students in India attend overcrowded, underfunded state universities where educational quality is severely lacking. These environments, marked by poor infrastructure and a shortage of qualified faculty, make attending classes more of an endurance test than an educational pursuit.
The Administrative Burden on Students
Implementing a strict biometric attendance system in poorly resourced colleges amounts to administrative coercion. In institutions lacking practical training opportunities, placement services, or quality lectures, enforcing attendance becomes an imposition rather than a pathway to professional discipline. This system disproportionately impacts students from less privileged backgrounds, forcing them to endure long commutes and high costs for minimal educational benefit, perpetuating resentment and exclusion.
Modern Learning Preferences: Efficiency Over Tradition
The contemporary law student, part of a digital-first generation, finds the current attendance regime inefficient. Modern students question the value of sitting through hours of lectures when the same content can be learned online in a fraction of the time. The current framework treats information as scarce, while in reality, time has become the most valuable resource for students. Law schools confuse passive presence with active learning, failing to adapt to the needs of today’s learners.
Reassessing Attendance Requirements: Impact on Students
Law students often sacrifice their formative years to an attendance-focused education model that does not align with professional needs. The legal market values skills over mere classroom presence, yet the current system penalizes those pursuing practical experiences outside lecture halls. The words of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who mentioned attending few classes during his education, highlight the disconnect between classroom attendance and professional success.
Addressing Inequities: Impact on Students with Disabilities
The rigid attendance policies fail to consider the diverse needs of students, particularly those with disabilities. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 mandates reasonable accommodation, yet many law schools lack the necessary infrastructure and flexibility. Forcing students with disabilities to adhere to strict attendance requirements without support is detrimental to their education and well-being.
Moving Towards a More Inclusive and Relevant Legal Education
The Supreme Court’s concerns overlook a critical truth: the value of a physical campus diminishes when educational offerings lack substance. Filling empty classrooms requires more than mandating attendance; it demands a transformation in teaching methods to foster active engagement and practical learning. The tragedy of Sushant Rohilla and ongoing student litigation should serve as a wake-up call for reform. Institutions must abandon punitive measures and create inclusive environments that encourage genuine intellectual growth.
Rayees is an independent legal researcher and writer. He can be contacted at rayeeshere1@gmail.com
