Supreme Court Intervenes in Delhi High Court Attendance Ruling
The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on a Delhi High Court ruling that permitted law students to participate in examinations despite not meeting the required attendance criteria. This decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta in response to a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Legal Proceedings and Court Directives
During the hearing, the Supreme Court directed that the enforcement of paragraph 249 of the Delhi High Court’s judgment be temporarily suspended, with a return notice scheduled for July 21. The Court noted that while the current ruling will be effective prospectively, it does not preclude other High Courts from addressing similar issues regarding attendance in ongoing cases.
“Issue notice returnable on 21st July. In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively,” the Court stated.
Implications for National Law Universities
Highlighting the broader impact on national law universities (NLUs), the bench remarked that these institutions are facing challenges due to the Delhi High Court’s decision. “All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,” the bench observed.
BCI’s Delayed Response
The Supreme Court questioned the BCI’s delay in challenging the High Court’s decision. BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra acknowledged this lapse, admitting it was an oversight on their part.
Concerns Over Academic Discipline
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing NMIMS college, argued that the High Court’s judgment inadvertently rewarded students with poor attendance records. “They are not going to colleges,” he asserted. The Supreme Court responded by questioning the implications of the judgment, suggesting that it effectively allowed students to avoid attending colleges.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a November 2025 judgment by the Delhi High Court, which ruled that students should not be barred from examinations solely due to low attendance. These guidelines were issued following a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) after the 2017 suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student at Amity University.
Rohilla had allegedly faced harassment from the institution for not meeting attendance requirements, which compelled him to repeat an academic year in his BA LLB course, leading to his tragic suicide.
Future Proceedings and Related Petitions
The Supreme Court also addressed a petition challenging the use of biometric attendance in law colleges, citing concerns over data protection. Petitioner Prakruthi Jain argued the lack of safeguards in data management when outsourced to private entities. The Court scheduled a hearing for this matter on July 21, requesting institutional responses.
Representing NMIMS, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, alongside Advocate Kanu Agrawal, emphasized the potential for increased litigation due to the Delhi High Court ruling, which could undermine academic discipline and autonomy.
