No law student be detained from sitting in exams for lack of attendance: Delhi HC
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that no law student in the country should be detained from sitting in examinations due to lack of minimum attendance.
The high court, which passed a slew of directions in relation to mandatory attendance requirement in law colleges, asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to modify the mandatory attendance norms.
Due to shortage of attendance, student’s promotion to next semester class cannot be withheld, it said.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma passed the order while disposing of a suo motu petition, initiated by the Supreme Court, in relation to the death of law student Sushant Rohilla by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance.
“Having heard at length the submission of all stakeholders in this case over the course of hearing and having considered the stark realities that have come to the surface, this court is strongly of the view that norms education in general and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone death of a student,” the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.
Rohilla, a third year law student of Amity, had hanged himself at his home here on August 10, 2016 after his college allegedly barred him from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance. He left behind a note, saying he was a failure and did not wish to live.
The present petition was initiated by the Supreme Court in September 2016 following the incident but was transferred to the high court in March 2017.
While pronouncing the judgment, the high court said, the Bar Council of India (BCI) should undertake a stakeholder consultation, including student bodies, parents and teachers for this purpose, in an expeditious manner in order to safeguard the life and mental health of students keeping in mind the impact on students at detention or non-appearance in exams due to mandatory attendance requirements can have.
“While the consultations by the BCI are underway, in the interregnum, it is directed as under -- 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 of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance,” the bench said.
It added that no law college, university or institution should be permitted to mandate norms of attendance, norms which are over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI.
In so far as mandatory attendance norms fixed by the BCI are concerned, all law colleges, universities and institutions recognised which impart three year and five year degrees should, with immediate effect, implement accelerative measures, including, firstly, weekly notification of attendance of students to online portal or a mobile app, monthly notice to parents and legal guardians regarding any shortage in attendance, conducting extra physical or online classes for such students who do not fulfil the minimum attendance norms.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
