The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a portion of the Delhi High Court’s 2025 judgment, which had ruled that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations solely on account of low attendance.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stayed the operation and effect of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment, noting that the order would have a prospective effect.
The Apex Court also issued notice on the petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging the High Court’s directions relating to mandatory attendance requirements in law colleges. The Court, however, clarified that the order would not impact the High Courts dealing with the issue, noting that they remain free to independently decide similar attendance-related disputes pending before them as they deem appropriate.
During the hearing, the Bench remarked that National Law Universities (NLUs) were facing difficulties following the Delhi High Court verdict. It observed that NLUs across the country were facing difficulties because of the ruling. The students overwhelmingly opposed mandatory attendance, it noted, adding that even alumni were standing in solidarity with them. The judges further questioned the BCI as to why it took the Council so long to challenge the ruling. BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra admitted the delay was a mistake on their part.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing NMIMS, argued that the High Court’s decision essentially rewarded student indiscipline by letting them skip classes.
The Bench asked if the ruling truly gave students a right to skip college, noting that the High Court had essentially rewritten the law itself.
The matter arises from a batch of petitions challenging the Delhi High Court’s November 2025 judgment, which held that students enrolled in recognised law institutions could not be detained from examinations or academic progression merely because of attendance shortages.
The directions were issued in a suo motu PIL initiated after the 2017 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla at Amity University. It was alleged that Rohilla faced harassment from the institution and faculty members over low attendance and was forced to repeat an academic year in the BA LLB course, circumstances which allegedly led to his death.
Earlier, on May 13, the Apex Court had sought the BCI’s response on a petition filed by NMIMS challenging the High Court ruling. The petitioner argued that the judgment had opened the floodgates for litigation by students seeking permission to sit for examinations despite inadequate attendance, thereby affecting academic discipline and institutional autonomy.
The post Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court order granting relief to students with attendance shortage appeared first on India Legal.