A judgment that blends discipline with compassion

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently interacted with a group of people in Goa at the VM Salgaocar College of Law, confessing that he usually spent his days outside the classroom. He remembered how he used to sit on the compound wall and relied on his friends who would record attendance on his behalf. He also talked about how he would revise just the past year question papers and yet he ranked third in his law school.

It was a light-hearted memory, yet it showed me something much more deep about the issue - attendance doesn’t necessarily mean learning.

This is what the Delhi High Court has understood in their recent ruling in the case of In Re: Sushant Rohilla authored by Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma. A question of how a young law student committed suicide developed into a potent commentary on the way India handles its students and how the strictness of our education system may occasionally kill talent instead of fostering it.

The case was occasioned by the suicide of a law school student who did not pass the eligibility examination because of lack of attendance. His death caused an outcry among campuses and the Delhi High Court, rather than conducting it as a closed case, explored the deep-rooted systemic questions behind such tragedies. During years of hearings, it outlined gaps that are of critical importance to consider such areas as the absence of grievance redressal, neglect of mental health and the rigidity in the enforcement of attendance norms.

The judgment stands out for its courage and clarity. It recognised that students are not statistics; they are young, vulnerable individuals who face immense academic and social pressure. In doing so, the Court gave a voice to countless students who struggle silently within rigid institutional walls.

A key aspect of the ruling is its emphasis on functional Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) in universities and professional colleges. The Court criticised the tokenism that often surrounds such bodies and directed that students must comprise at least half their membership, with access to trained counsellors and psychologists on every campus.

Through this, the Court has reiterated the concept of institutional accountability for student welfare. Distress and dissent have been long enough considered as disturbances. The verdict demands that such indicators of distress must be addressed with concern and solutions rather than with punishment.

The rights-based, modern education policy of the Court is a vision of GRCs as platforms of both grievance resolution and mental-wellness support. It justifiably places mental health in its context in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Another point of great interest is what the Court said concerning mandatory attendance. It even questioned the existence of the standardised 75 per cent requirement and why it is necessary, particularly in professional programs such as law where internship and exposure to courts are necessary. The Bench proposed a more flexible and incentive-based method that would promote participation as opposed to punishing it.

Chief Justice Gavai’s own law school anecdote now seems almost prophetic proof that curiosity and commitment cannot be confined to classroom hours. As the High Court subtly reminds us, true learning is about depth, not duration.

The Court has brought modernity to an archaic system by advising the Bar Council of India and the University Grants Commission UGC to re-examine the norms of attendance according to the National Education Policy 2020.

Even the Supreme Court has started dealing with this burgeoning crisis of student distress. It instructed the establishment of a National Task Force to investigate the rise of student suicides in March 2025 and provide preventive reforms. It even recently admonished premier institutions like IITs and IIMs to cooperate with the survey conducted by the Task Force threatening to take any negative orders in case they do not comply.

All these judicial interventions send a strong message that student welfare is no longer a peripheral concept to the entire education debate; it is at the center of such a debate. Institutions are forced to look within themselves, re-establish trust and develop a setting in which students feel free.

In the end, one can say that In Re: Sushant Rohilla started with sorrow but ended on a hopeful note. It takes the tragedy of one student and uses it as a roadmap to change. The Delhi High Court has demonstrated that the law, being informed by human knowledge and moral clarity, can be empathetic and bring about positive change.

In an age when institutions often prize rankings over relationships, the Court’s message is both timeless and urgent: the true measure of a university lies not in its placements or infrastructure, but in how it treats its students when they falter.

Provided this is applied in the spirit and strengthened by the national initiative of the Supreme Court, this judgment may well become a historic turning point in Indian higher education.

Sameer Vashisht is a Standing Counsel (Civil) for the Government of NCT of Delhi.