सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कानून छात्र उपस्थिति नियम, परीक्षा पात्रता और BCI मानदंडों पर फैसला स्थगित कर दिया

The

Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on pleas challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely for failing to meet minimum attendance requirements.

According to PTI, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih, and Sandeep Mehta heard separate petitions challenging the Delhi High Courtâs November 3, 2025 judgment. The bench permitted the parties to file their written submissions within two weeks.

The case concerns the wider directions issued by the High Court on attendance requirements for students enrolled in recognised law colleges, universities, and institutions across the country. The Supreme Courtâs eventual ruling will determine the extent to which such attendance norms can be enforced against law students.

Supreme Court had stayed key Delhi High Court direction

The Supreme Court had on May 26 stayed the operation of paragraph 249 of the Delhi High Court judgment, which dealt with the consequences of inadequate attendance.

The High Court had directed that students enrolled in recognised law institutions should not be detained from appearing in examinations, prevented from pursuing further academic activities, or denied career progression solely because of inadequate attendance.

The Supreme Court had clarified that its stay would operate prospectively.

The Delhi High Court had also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider mandatory attendance requirements for students enrolled in three-year and five-year LLB programmes.

High Court said attendance rules should not cause mental trauma

In its November 2025 judgment, the Delhi High Court had observed that attendance requirements should not be imposed so stringently that they cause mental trauma to students.

The High Court also stressed the need for institutions to establish mechanisms through which students can raise and resolve their grievances.

The court further held that law colleges and universities should not prescribe attendance requirements higher than the minimum percentage stipulated by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.

These observations brought the enforcement of attendance requirements in legal education under wider judicial scrutiny, particularly where a studentâs academic progression could be affected solely because of attendance.

BCI asked to reconsider attendance framework

The Delhi High Court had asked the BCI to reconsider the mandatory attendance requirements applicable to both three-year and five-year LLB courses.

The court had also said the BCI should consider giving academic credit for activities that form part of practical and broader legal education. These included moot courts, seminars, model Parliament, debates, and attending court hearings.

The directions recognised that participation in legal and academic activities extends beyond conventional classroom attendance.

The High Court had further directed that institutions should not prescribe attendance requirements above the minimum percentage laid down by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.

Case stems from death of law student Sushant Rohilla

The proceedings originated from the death of law student Sushant Rohilla in 2016.

The matter had initially been taken up by the Supreme Court as a suo motu proceeding and was subsequently transferred to the Delhi High Court.

During the proceedings, the High Court also examined issues concerning student grievances and mental health.

The court directed educational institutions and universities to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees in accordance with the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

It also directed the UGC to initiate consultations on its regulations and consider amendments concerning student grievance redressal and mental health concerns.

Supreme Court verdict to decide future of attendance restrictions

The Supreme Courtâs verdict will now determine the legal position on the directions issued by the Delhi High Court and the extent to which attendance requirements can be used to restrict a law studentâs academic progression.

At the heart of the dispute is whether falling short of prescribed attendance can, by itself, justify preventing a student from taking an examination or continuing with further academic activities.

The ruling is expected to have implications for recognised law colleges and universities that enforce attendance requirements under the legal education framework.

(With inputs from PTI)

Powered by Nyaya 247 News