Photo: Mikhail nilov by Pexels 

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

 

The Supreme Court ,on Thursday raised serious concerns over a Delhi High Court judgment that protected law students from being barred due to low attendance, observing that such a ruling could undermine the very purpose of classroom education in law colleges. 

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, questioned why the Bar Council of India (BCI) had not challenged the Delhi High Court decision, which held that shortage of attendance should not stop students from appearing in examinations or continuing their academic studies.

During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath openly expressed dissatisfaction with the impact of the ruling on legal education, especially in prestigious National Law Universities (NLUs).

“If the students do not attend, what’s the point?” Justice Nath remarked during the proceedings. He further observed that NLUs are known for their highly qualified faculty and quality classroom teaching, and students staying away from classes defeats the purpose of legal education itself.

The matter came up before the apex court in connection with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two final-year students of NALSAR University of Law. The students challenged certain circulars issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2024. These circulars made several compliances mandatory for students seeking enrolment in legal education and legal practice.

The BCI circulars required students to undergo criminal background verification, declare whether they were simultaneously pursuing another degree or employment, and comply with mandatory attendance norms before becoming eligible for enrolment.

 

Supreme Court Says Delhi HC Order Has Created “Chaos” 

During the hearing, the Supreme Court specifically referred to the Delhi High Court judgment delivered in November 2025. Justice Nath asked BCI counsel Advocate Radhika Gautam whether the BCI had filed any appeal against that ruling. According to the Bench, the judgment had created “chaos” for law universities across the country.

The Court noted that attendance requirements are deeply linked to broader issues such as biometric attendance systems, which are also under consideration in the present matter.

As the BCI counsel sought time to obtain instructions on whether the Council intended to challenge the Delhi High Court judgment, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter to next week. However, the Bench indicated that even if the BCI itself does not appeal against the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court may still examine its correctness independently.

 

“2016 Student Suicide Case Became Turning Point” 

The controversy traces back to a significant judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in November 2025. In that ruling, the High Court declared that no student enrolled in a recognised law college, university, or institution in India should be detained from taking examinations or prevented from continuing academic pursuits merely because of low attendance.

The Delhi High Court was hearing a suo motu case linked to the tragic death of a law student in 2016. The case originated after a friend of the deceased student wrote a letter to the then Chief Justice of India alleging that the student had faced harassment from the college administration and certain faculty members over poor attendance.

Taking note of the mental stress faced by students, the High Court observed that attendance rules in educational institutions, especially law colleges, should not be enforced so rigidly that they lead to extreme mental trauma or even suicides.

The Court had stressed that education systems must become more flexible and student-friendly. It also directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider the mandatory attendance requirements for both three-year and five-year LL.B. courses across India.

The High Court said such reconsideration should align with the principles of flexibility promoted under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2003.

 

Delhi University Students Also Got Relief 

Importantly, the Delhi High Court judgment was neither stayed nor modified after it was delivered. As a result, it began influencing subsequent cases involving attendance shortages in law colleges.

In January this year, a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court relied on the Division Bench ruling while hearing petitions filed by several LL.B. students from the University of Delhi.

These students had been barred from appearing in their end-semester examinations or had their results withheld because they failed to meet the university’s mandatory 70 percent attendance requirement.

Referring to the November 2025 Division Bench judgment as binding precedent, the Single Judge allowed the petitions and ruled that shortage of attendance could not be used as a valid ground to stop students from taking exams or continuing their studies.

The decision provided major relief to law students but also triggered concerns among universities and legal education regulators about the dilution of classroom discipline and academic standards.

 

Supreme Court May Revisit Attendance Rules Across India 

The Supreme Court’s latest observations now indicate that the apex court may take a closer look at the larger implications of these rulings on legal education in India.

The Bench appeared particularly concerned about the message being sent to students regarding classroom participation and the importance of academic engagement in professional courses like law.

The case before the Supreme Court is titled Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India, along with connected matters. 

The matter is expected to come up again next week, when the Bar Council of India is likely to inform the Court about its stand on challenging the Delhi High Court judgment. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for attendance policies in law colleges and universities across the country.