Case Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

Bench: Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Amit Sharma

New Delhi: In a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for legal education in India, the Delhi High Court on Monday declared that no law student shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits due to a lack of minimum attendance.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma issued a slew of binding directions, effectively replacing punitive detention with a system of "ameliorative measures" and minor grade reductions.

The Court delivered its verdict while closing a suo motu case initiated in 2016 following the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi. Rohilla had been allegedly subjected to harassment and was debarred from appearing in his semester exams due to low attendance, which his friend's letter to the then Chief Justice of India alleged led to the incident.

'Loss of Young Life Cannot Be at the Cost of Mandatory Attendance'

The Bench, observing that the case highlighted a deep-seated mental health crisis among students, held that attendance norms cannot be so stringent as to cause "mental trauma... and their deaths by suicide."

"Even if attendance is not the only factor which led to the unfortunate incident of loss of Rohilla, loss of a young life cannot come at the cost of mandatory attendance norms," the Court emphatically stated.

The judgment comes after years of stakeholder consultations, during which the Court examined the practical difficulties faced by students, including financial distress, long commutes, and family responsibilities, which are often ignored by rigid attendance systems.

Key Interim Directions: No More Detention

Recognizing the "debilitating impact" of detention, the High Court issued a set of interim directions that are binding on all recognized law colleges, universities, and institutions in India while the Bar Council of India (BCI) re-evaluates its norms.

The key directives effective immediately are:

No Detention from Exams: No student shall be detained from taking an examination or prevented from career progression on the ground of lacking minimum attendance.
No College-Level Rigidity: No institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms that are "over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI."

The New System: Ameliorative Measures, Not Detention

Instead of barring students, the Court has mandated a new, supportive framework. If a student falls short of attendance, colleges must now implement "ameliorative measures" during the semester itself.

These measures include:

Weekly/Monthly Notifications: Notifying students of their attendance status via online portals, mobile apps, and monthly notices to parents or guardians.
Extra Classes: Conducting extra physical or online classes for students to make up their shortage.
Alternative Assignments: Allotting home assignments or "stringent practical work in legal aid clinics" to cover the attendance shortage.

The New Penalty: Minor Grade Reduction

The Court held that even if a student fails to qualify for the prescribed attendance after all these measures, they cannot be barred from the examination.

Instead, the college will be permitted to impose a minor academic penalty. The Court ruled:

"The student shall be permitted to take the semester exam. However, in the final result, the grade of the student would be permitted to be reduced by a maximum of 5% in case of marks being awarded, and by 0.33% in case of CGPA system being followed."

Crucially, the Court added, "Merely on shortage of attendance, promotion to the next semester shall not be withheld."

Legal Education is Not 'Mere Presence in Classrooms'

The High Court's judgment is a deep dive into the philosophy of legal education, arguing that rigid attendance rules are antithetical to the goal of creating holistic, well-rounded lawyers.

"Legal Education does not merely require one sided teaching," the Bench observed. "It has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law and the implementation thereof. In order to obtain such holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required nor can be sufficient."

The Court held that practical training, moot courts, seminars, debates, and attending court hearings are essential components of legal learning that are often stifled by "strict mandatory attendance requirements."

Directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI)

The High Court directed the BCI, as the apex regulator, to conduct a comprehensive "re-evaluation" of its mandatory attendance norms for both 3-year and 5-year LLB courses.

This re-evaluation must be in line with the court's observations and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which the court noted emphasizes "flexibility and not rigidity."

The BCI has been ordered to:

Conduct Stakeholder Consultation: Initiate an "expeditious" consultation process involving students, student bodies, parents, and teachers.
Credit Practical Work: Modify its attendance norms to "enable giving credit" to participation in moot courts, seminars, debates, and court hearings.

Focus on Mental Health & Student Support

The ruling also issued significant directives on student welfare:

Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs): It is now mandatory for all institutions to constitute GRCs as per UGC regulations. The Court urged the UGC to amend its rules to include at least 2-3 student members, not just "special invitees."
Counselors & Psychologists: The BCI must amend its affiliation conditions to ensure all law colleges appoint "adequate number of counselors, psychologists" to their GRCs.
Mandatory Internships: The BCI and State Bar Councils must, within three months, publish lists of senior advocates, law firms, and government organizations willing to provide internships. This is aimed at helping students from EWS and remote backgrounds who lack the resources to arrange internships themselves.

Click on the link to read full order : https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS03112025CRLW7932017_132654.pdf