The Delhi High Court in In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla (2025) ruled on the 2016 case of a law student’s suicide after being barred from exams for low attendance.

Stance of the Court

• Public-Interest: The Court treated the incident as a public-interest inquiry into whether university attendance policies comply with constitutional standards of fairness and proportionality.
• Attendance Rules Remain Valid Under BCI Regulation: The Court upheld Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Legal Education Rules, 2008 that mandates 70% attendance, relaxable to 65% in exceptional circumstances.
• Issue is Enforcement of Attendance Rules: The Court clarified that the dispute was not about the legitimacy of attendance rules but about their rigid, mechanical and punitive enforcement.
• Procedural Fairness: The Court held that mechanically penalising students without prior notice or hearing fails the constitutional requirement of fair and just decision-making.
• Recommendation to Revisit Rule 12: The Court urged the BCI to reconsider the strictness of Rule 12 in light of NEP 2020 and UGC Regulations, which promote flexibility and learner-centric education.
  • The Court clarified that fairness is not a procedural formality but a constitutional value protecting students from disproportionate academic harm.

Constitutional Framework

• Article 14:  Universities exercise disciplinary authority as public bodies, and therefore their decisions must be reasoned, proportionate and non-arbitrary.
• Article 21: The Court linked procedural fairness to students’ dignity and emotional well-being, making student welfare part of the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity.

New Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Issued by Delhi High Court

• Early and Continuous Communication: Universities must regularly publish weekly attendance data and issue monthly shortage notices to students and parents so that attendance issues are identified early
• Supportive and Remedial Measures: Universities must provide counselling and allow students to compensate for attendance shortage through recognised academic activities such as extra classes, assignments, moots, internships, research, or legal-aid work, especially when genuine medical or personal hardships exist.
• Due Process Before Debarment: Before denying exam access, universities must issue a formal notice, allow the student to present their case, and resort to debarment only as a last step supported by a reasoned order.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

The judgment urges a cultural shift from policing to mentorship, calling for student-inclusive grievance mechanisms and a pedagogy that values active, experiential learning over mere attendance.

DOWNLOAD PDF