The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Bar Council of India's (BCI) response on a plea by NMIMS college challenging a Delhi High Court judgment which held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely on the ground of insufficient attendance [Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies vs. Bar Council of India].
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi however, refused to stay the Delhi High Court ruling for now.
“We are not suspending that order. We will hear the matter, decide and lay down the correct position of law,” the Bench said.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for NMIMS, argued that the Delhi High Court judgment had effectively rendered attendance requirements meaningless.
“The High Court says no attendance is required anywhere. People don’t want to go to colleges. I am wondering why we went to college then,” Rohatgi submitted.
The Court agreed, observing that the effect of the High Court judgment could be that National Law University hostels would become “just boarding and lodging facilities”.
It eventually issued notice on the plea and tagged the matter with a pending batch of petitions challenging BCI circulars introducing mandatory criminal background disclosures, declarations regarding simultaneous academic pursuits, employment status and attendance compliance for law students.
The present plea was filed by NMIMS college challenging a November 2025 judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court. In that case, the High Court had held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or continuing academic progression solely due to shortage of attendance.
The petitioner before the Supreme Court argued that the Delhi High Court ruling had triggered a “floodgate” of litigation by students seeking permission to sit for examinations despite attendance shortages, thereby undermining academic discipline and institutional autonomy.
The plea contended that classroom teaching remains foundational to legal education, particularly in five-year integrated law programmes where students join college directly after school. It argued that lectures, tutorials, moot court exercises and practical training could not be substituted entirely by internships, competitions or other co-curricular activities.
The petition further stressed that Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008 mandated a minimum of 70 percent attendance, while already permitting limited condonation up to 65 percent in exceptional cases.
Referring to legal education systems in countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore, the plea argued that mandatory attendance norms and examination consequences for shortage of attendance were globally recognised features of professional legal education.
The petitioner also relied on several Supreme Court decisions emphasising judicial deference to expert academic and professional regulatory bodies in matters concerning educational standards.
The plea was filed by advocate Kanu Agrawal.