The Delhi High Court on May 14 denied relief to law student seeking to be admitted to the next semester without having attended the classes and examinations of the previous semester [Aman Bansal v. University of Delhi].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the benefit of In Re Sushant Rohilla, which allowed leniency for students falling short of attendance, was not meant for students who don't attend a single class.

"In view of the above, the Appellant cannot be permitted to bypass an entire semester without attending a single class by placing reliance upon the decision in Sushant Rohilla (supra), which dealt with a case of shortage of attendance and not one of nil attendance. Accordingly, there is no parity between the Appellant’s case of 0% attendance and cases involving shortage of attendance. The benefit of the decision in Sushant Rohilla (supra) cannot be extended to students who neither took admission to nor attended any classes in the relevant semester, as the ratio of the said decision was confined to situations where the students fell short of the prescribed minimum attendance in that semester."

The student was barred from appearing for Semester-II examinations due to low attendance. After the Delhi University set up a committee to evaluate student grievances, the student was allowed to appear for the Semester-II examinations held in May-June, 2025, subject to the outcome of the proceedings held by the committee.

With the results of Semester-II withheld and promotion to Semester-III denied, the student could not appear for the Semester-III examinations held in December 2025.

In January 2026, the student took re-admission to Semester-II and resumed attending classes. He approached the Delhi High Court in March 2026 and sought admission to Semester-IV on the ground of academic continuity. A single judge had denied him relief, prompting an appeal before the Division Bench.

The Court held that if a student was unable to secure admission to a particular semester due to circumstances beyond their control, they could not claim admission to the fourth semester without having attending any classes or examinations of the preceding one.

"We are of the considered view that students, who have neither attended even a single class in a particular semester nor appeared in the examinations for that semester, cannot claim the benefit of progression to the next semester, even where the denial of admission was for reasons not attributable to them."

The Bench further upheld the denial of relief by the single judge since the appellant student had not approached the Court when he was denied admission for Semester-III and approached the Court only after Semester-IV had commenced.

"The Appellant did not approach this Court during the period when Semester-III was in progress by placing reliance on the said clause of the Prospectus. Instead, the Appellant allowed Semester III to conclude, took re-admission in Semester-II, and approached this Court only when Semester-IV was already underway."

Advocates Gaurav Arya, Harsh Goyal, Naveen Bamel, Yuvraj, Aakarshak Rathi and Manav Trivedi appeared for the student.

Advocates Preet Pal Singh, Tanupreet Kaur, Gaurav, Simran Kumari, Pooja and Medha Sharma represented University of Delhi and Bar Council of India (BCI).