Author: Supreet Kaur Sethi

Court: Delhi High Court
Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2025
Case Type: Suo Motu Writ Petition
Bench: Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma
Relevant Provisions:

1. Article 14 – Right to Equality
2. Article 19(1)(g) – Right to Practice Any Profession
3. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
4. Rule 12, Legal Education Rules, 2008 (Bar Council of India)

Introduction 

On 3 November 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment addressing mandatory attendance norms in law colleges and students’ right to examination and academic progression, holding that no law student can be barred from appearing in exams or denied promotion solely on the basis of short attendance. The ruling stems from a suo motu petition that emerged after the tragic suicide of a law student over attendance-related academic exclusion, and reflects the Court’s recognition that rigid institutional attendance requirements may violate constitutional protections, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. 

Background and Brief Facts 

Sushant Rohilla was a law student enrolled in Amity Law School which was at that time affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. During his academic tenure, he was declared ineligible to appear for his semester examinations due to shortage of attendance, allegedly failing to meet the prescribed minimum attendance threshold.

Even after he explained his situation and asked for some flexibility, no support was given to him. The institution followed the attendance rule strictly, without looking into his personal circumstances or considering how being stopped from appearing in the examination would affect him academically and emotionally.

In August 2016, Sushant Rohilla died by suicide. His death sent shockwaves through academic and legal circles, raising serious questions about institutional insensitivity, absence of grievance redressal, and lack of mental-health awareness within professional educational institutions.

A letter detailing the circumstances surrounding his death was sent to the Supreme Court of India. Recognising the gravity of the issue and its broader implications, the Supreme Court converted the letter into a suo motu writ petition. After this the matter was transferred to the Delhi High Court to examine the systemic issues which were  surrounding attendance norms in legal education.

So what really began as an individual tragedy transformed into a constitutional inquiry affecting thousands of law students across the country.

Issues Involved 

The case raised several interconnected constitutional and regulatory questions:

Firstly, whether law universities and colleges possess the authority to completely bar students from appearing in examinations solely on the basis of attendance shortage, without providing alternative remedial measures.

Secondly, whether rigid enforcement of attendance norms violates Article 14 by operating arbitrarily and failing to account for individual circumstances such as illness, family obligations, or mental health issues.

Thirdly, whether the denial of the opportunity to appear in examinations constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g), since legal education is a prerequisite to entering the legal profession.

Fourthly, whether such academic exclusion infringes upon Article 21, which guarantees not only life but life with dignity, mental well-being, and the right to pursue one’s aspirations.

And lastly, whether regulatory bodies like the Bar Council of India must frame educational norms in a manner that will balance discipline with compassion for the students and constitutional morality.

Students’ Perspective and Submissions 

The arguments placed before the Court emphasised that attendance rules, though important, cannot be applied in a blanket and punitive manner. It was contended that denying students the right to sit for examinations results in irreversible harm, including delay in graduation, financial burden on families, social stigma, and severe psychological distress.

Students argued that attendance shortage does not necessarily reflect academic incompetence or lack of seriousness. Many students face unavoidable circumstances such as medical issues, family emergencies, part-time work obligations, or mental health challenges. A rigid policy that fails to recognise such realities amounts to institutional arbitrariness.

It was also argued that law students have a vulnerable position because each lost academic year directly affects their entry into the legal profession, which is already competitive and time-sensitive. Thus, attendance-based detention affects their professional future severely.

Respondents’ and Regulatory Stand 

The Bar Council of India and educational institutions defended attendance norms as necessary to ensure academic rigor, classroom engagement, and quality of legal education. They argued that physical presence in classrooms is vital for professional training, ethical development, and interactive learning.Though the Court here observed that while attendance may be a legitimate regulatory objective, the method of enforcement must be constitutionally compliant. The Court made it clear that discipline cannot come at the cost of dignity, and regulation cannot translate into punishment that permanently derails a student’s career. 

Judicial Reasoning and Observations 

1. Article 21 – Right to Life, Dignity, and Mental Health

The Court gave a broad interpretation to Article 21, holding that the right to life includes mental well-being, emotional stability, and hope for the future. Academic policies that lead to extreme distress, humiliation, or despair undermine this right.The Court observed that educational institutions must function as support systems, not sources of trauma. Mechanical detention policies, when disconnected from human realities, violate the constitutional promise of dignified existence.

2. Doctrine of Proportionality

An important aspect of the judgment is the application of the doctrine of proportionality. The Court held that while encouraging attendance is a legitimate aim, complete exclusion from examinations is an excessive and disproportionate response.The Court suggested that institutions can adopt alternative measures such as:

1. reduction in internal assessment marks,
2. compulsory remedial classes,
3. additional academic assignments.

Such measures achieve discipline without destroying academic futures.

3. Article 14 – Arbitrariness and Equality

The Court held that treating all attendance shortages identically, regardless of circumstances, violates Article 14. Equality does not mean uniform punishment but fair and reasonable treatment.

A policy that ignores personal hardship and applies automatic detention fails the test of non-arbitrariness laid down in constitutional jurisprudence.

4. Article 19(1)(g) – Right to Profession

The Court recognised that legal education is inseparably linked to the right to practice law. Denying students the opportunity to complete their education effectively blocks access to the legal profession, amounting to an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).

5. Recognition of Mental Health in Education

One of the most progressive aspects of the judgment is its acknowledgment of mental health as a constitutional concern. The Court explicitly recognised that excessive academic pressure, combined with institutional rigidity, can have devastating psychological consequences.

Final Directions given by the Court 

The Delhi High Court issued comprehensive directions:

1. No law student shall be barred from appearing in examinations solely on attendance shortage.
2. Institutions cannot prescribe attendance norms more stringent than those under BCI rules.
3. Attendance penalties must be reasonable, proportionate, and non-exclusionary.
4. The Bar Council of India was directed to reconsider and reform attendance norms, incorporating student welfare.
5. Universities must ensure transparent communication and grievance redressal mechanisms.

Ratio Decidendi 

The ratio of the judgment is that academic regulations must conform to constitutional principles, and any rule that disproportionately harms students’ dignity, mental health, or professional future violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.

Attendance norms cannot be enforced in a manner that extinguishes educational opportunity.