ILS Pune law students move Bombay High Court after being barred from exams for attendance shortage

A group of law students from Indian Law Society’s (ILS) Law College, Pune have approached the Bombay High Court alleging that they were arbitrarily barred from appearing for the ongoing semester-end examinations despite having more than 50% attendance and documented reasons for their shortfall. [Neelkashi Bhose v. State of Maharashtra 7 Ors.]

The matter was heard by a Bench of Justices RI Chagla and Advait Sethna on April 30 and will next be taken up on May 4.

The students are enrolled across different years of the five-year integrated law course and the three-year LL.B. programme in ILS Law College. They challenged the Savitribai Phule Pune University’s refusal to condone their attendance shortage under University Ordinance 70. 

The Ordinance allows condonation of up to 20 per cent where students face bona fide illness or other compelling circumstances beyond their control. 

The petition states that while the University had notified April 30, 2026 as the official end date of the second semester, the college unilaterally fixed March 14 as the cut-off for counting attendance. The University published a list of students with shortage on March 18, followed by a final defaulters’ list on March 28. 

The students say they were never given prior, periodic intimation of any shortfall and were under the belief that they met the requirement or would be able to make up the deficit by attending further lectures until the notified end of term.

Crucially, the petition points out that ILS allowed the students to fill examination forms online, approved them, accepted examination fees and issued hall tickets through the University. This created a legitimate expectation that any attendance shortage had been condoned. 

According to the plea, it was only in early April that they were orally told they would not be permitted to take the exams, even as three other students with 50–55 per cent attendance were allegedly granted relief after their attendance was “reworked” to meet the 55 per cent threshold.

The students contend that this amounts to selective and discriminatory treatment in breach of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

They also rely on various Bar Council of India Rules, University Ordinances and the Delhi High Court’s judgment in the Sushant Rohilla case, which cautioned against using attendance shortages to bar law students from examinations without exploring less drastic measures.

The petition seeks quashing of the defaulters’ list insofar as it concerns them and a direction to allow them to appear in the remaining second-semester examinations. 

The plea was filed by Talekar & Associates.