Supreme Court stays Delhi HC order allowing law students with low attendance to take exams

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the operation of a Delhi High Court judgment that held law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations merely on grounds of insufficient attendance, noting that law colleges across the country were facing difficulties due to the ruling.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the high court appeared to have entered the legislative domain. “Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to colleges? The high court has legislated literally,” the court observed.

The court passed the interim direction suspending the order while issuing notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging the November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court.

“Issue notice returnable on July 21. In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively,” the bench ordered.

During the hearing, the court observed that the high court ruling was causing widespread issues, particularly in National Law Universities (NLUs), with students resisting mandatory attendance norms. 

“All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,” the bench remarked.

The court also questioned the BCI’s delay in approaching the apex court. 

BCI chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra admitted it was a lapse on the part of the regulatory body.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in a connected matter, argued that the Delhi High Court judgment had virtually rewarded indiscipline, as students were no longer attending classes.

The November 2025 Delhi High Court judgment had ruled that no student in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or academic progression solely due to shortage of attendance. 

The ruling came in the backdrop of the 2017 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla at Amity University, where allegations of harassment over low attendance were raised.

The high court had said attendance rules should not be applied so rigidly that they cause mental distress or extreme consequences. 

It also directed the BCI to revisit mandatory attendance norms for three-year and five-year law courses in view of the National Education Policy 2020.

The judgment triggered strong opposition from law colleges and institutions, which argued that it undermined academic discipline and institutional autonomy. 

On May 13, while hearing a plea by NMIMS, the court had expressed serious reservations, cautioning that such a view could reduce law college hostels to mere “boarding and lodging facilities”.

The BCI’s petition relies on Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, which mandates 70 per cent minimum attendance with limited condonation up to 65 per cent in exceptional cases.