Supreme Court reserves verdict on appeals against removal of mandatory attendance for law students

The Delhi High Court had held that law students cannot be detained from taking exams or continuing academic progression solely due to attendance shortage.

Students, Supreme Court

Published on:

06 Oct 2026, 10:24 am

2 min read

Listen to this article

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court ruling that prohibited law colleges from debarring students with attendance shortage from appearing in examinations [Bar Council of India v. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and AG Masih reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from the Bar Council of India (BCI), law institutions and others.

Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Earlier this year, the top court had stayed the operative direction (paragraph 249) of the High Court judgment prospectively. During those proceedings, the Bench remarked that National Law Universities (NLUs) and colleges across the country were "suffering" as the High Court had "legislated" and effectively given a premium to students lacking discipline.

The dispute traces back to a November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had initiated a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) following the 2017 suicide of Amity Law School student Sushant Rohilla, who died after allegedly facing harassment and being forced to repeat an academic year due to low attendance.

In that verdict, the High Court held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or progressing academically solely on the ground of insufficient attendance.

Challenging the ruling, the BCI and NMIMS Law College argued before the Supreme Court that removing mandatory attendance requirements severely undermines academic rigor, institutional autonomy and professional standards in legal education. It was also highlighted that the High Court order led to a surge in litigation by students seeking examination waivers across multiple institutions.