Supreme Court stays Delhi HC direction allowing law students with low attendance to sit for exams

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Delhi High Court order passed last year which held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely on the ground of insufficient attendance.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while issuing notice on a petition moved by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging the directions issued by Delhi High Court with regard to compulsory attendance for law students.

"Issue notice returnable on 21st July. In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgement shall remain stayed. However the same shall be effective prospectively," the Court ordered.

The Court added that its directions would not prevent High Courts from independently dealing with similar issues concerning attendance requirements in matters pending before them.

"It will be open for High Courts where similar matters are pending on issue of attendance, the High Courts will be at liberty to take appropriate decisions." it noted.

During the hearing today, the Court said that national law colleges were suffering after Delhi High Court decision.

"All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students," the Bench said.

The Court also questioned why the BCI had not challenged the High Court decision earlier.

"Why did you come so late?" the Bench asked.

BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra admitted that the delay was a lapse on their part.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of NMIMS college, said that the High Court judgement was giving a premium to people lacking discipline.

"They are not going to colleges," he said.

At this, the Court replied,

"Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to colleges? The High Court has legislated literally."

A batch of petitions before the top court have challenged the 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 High Court had issued the guidelines while disposing of a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated after the 2017 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla in Amity University. 

It was alleged that Rohilla was subjected to harassment by the institution and some faculty members for maintaining low attendance. He was forced to repeat an entire academic year in the BA LLB course, which allegedly led to his suicide. 

On May 13, the top court asked the BCI to respond to NMIMS college's petition, challenging the High Court judgement.

The college argued that the 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.

Today, a petition challenging biometric attendance in law colleges was also listed before the Court.

"There are no safeguards as to how this data will be protected. All of this will be outsourced to private intermediaries," petitioner Prakruthi Jain, appearing in the matter said.

The Court said it will hear the matter on July 21.

"Let the institutions respond on this. We have not decided your petition. It is still pending," it said.

NMIMS was represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi along with Advocate Kanu Agrawal.

[Read Live Coverage]