By Dr Apurva Thakur
A recent Delhi High Court judgement which dilutes the mandatory attendance requirement of 75 % set by the Bar Council of India has reopened the debate around the issue. The judgement directs that no student will be barred from appearing for the final exams solely due to attendance downfall. This direction may have long term implications for the quality of legal education in India.
Indian legal education is plagued by many challenges, and legal education institutions are trying to combat the gaps left by policy and implementation.
Role of attendance in academic performance
The study of law is an inherently multi-disciplinary professional course, which focuses on critical thinking skills and analysis of law and society. As a result, in-class discussions, case analysis, debates, and simulations form the backdrop of legal training. Attendance has a clear pedagogical purpose, and ensures that skills are developed through consistent engagement with the subject.
Empirical studies have shown a positive correlation between classroom attendance and academic performance. Students who attend lectures regularly tend to perform better over time. The study of law, requires sustained engagement to develop reasoning, interpretation, and communication skills. These cannot be meaningfully acquired through sporadic attendance or last-minute exam preparation.
Online learning, and AI driven educational tools have further complicated the debate on attendance, by making available access to information at the students’ convenience. However, having information does not directly translate to an understanding of the subject. Research indicates that students that rely only on digital learning exhibit lower retention of topics, and have a superficial understanding of the subject. Online learning encourages “spot learning” and focusses primarily on exam outcomes rather than critical engagement with the subject. Physical classrooms, by contrast, offer real-time feedback, peer interaction, and structured discipline that remain difficult to replicate online.
Mental health concerns
The Delhi High Court has framed attendance requirements as a source of student’s distress. Attributing student distress only to mandatory attendance requirement oversimplifies a complex problem. They have increased academic workload, competitive internships, parental expectations, peer pressure and an uncertain job market. Law firms in particular, demand constant high performance from student interns. There is no doubt that more measures need to be undertaken to support students’ mental health, including presence of counsellors on campus, mental health awareness campaigns, and training to students for peer-mentoring. However, by focusing narrowly on attendance, there is a risk of addressing the symptom rather than causes.
Inadequate counselling infrastructure, inconsistent regulatory oversight, unregulated internship practices, and growing commercial pressures within the legal profession play a far more significant role in student distress.
Administrative concerns
Legal education in India operates under a dual regulatory framework. Universities are governed by the University Grants Commission, whereas legal education in particular is governed by Bar Council of India. The UGC mandates a 50% minimum classroom attendance and the BCI mandates a 70% in-class attendance, with a limited scope for condonation up to 50%. From an administration perspective, such rules provide clear and predictable benchmarks to allow institution to function without bias.
Judicially diluting attendance thresholds without regulatory reform places institutions in an unsustainable position. Legal education Institutions are expected to maintain academic standards while navigating conflicting mandates. This ambiguity may weaken academic standards and a erode discipline among the students.
Unregulated internships
The study of law requires students’ exposure to real-world legal practise. Students are expected to undertake internships to enhance their legal education. The Bar Council is expected to provide a list of advocates under whom students can legitimately practise, while pursuing their legal education. However, in reality there is poor monitoring of these rules laid down by the BCI, leaving institutions to bridge the gaps, and navigate the legal education framework. To add to this, internships are often informal, poorly regulated, and typically unpaid. Students are encouraged, explicitly and implicitly, to prioritize internships over lectures. Law firms rarely accommodate academic schedules, and students need to balance internships with coursework. As a result, institutions are left enforcing attendance norms while lacking control over external pressures that draw students away from classrooms. Diluting attendance rules may unintentionally reinforce existing organizational imbalances rather than empowering students, and legal education institutes.
Suggestions for student centric reforms
A good legal education will need to balance classroom learning and practise. Institutions must introduce regulated flexibility and a balanced approach to bridging the gaps between courtrooms and classroom. Some measures could include:
- Maintain a lower mandatory baseline for attendance, such as 50% in-class attendance, as suggested by the UGC.
- Reducing the number of lectures to be conducted on campus, and focusing on flipped classroom pedagogy
- Including academic credit for internships, and essential co-curricular activities like moot courts, debates and research activities.
- Creating a robust mental health environment on campus by including on campus counselling, peer growth and training faculty.
Concluding remarks:
Judicially diluting academic standards risks creating a generation of law graduates with a degree without critical engagement. The purpose of education is to create holistic, well-rounded individuals. Attendance is essential for growth of students, and for maintaining academic standards. Mental health support and academic discipline are not mutually exclusive. Attendance ensures engagement; counselling ensures care. Substituting one for the other weakens both.
Any meaningful reform requires a coordinated action- regulators, institutions, parents and students. Without this, judicial interventions will continue to be a short-term solution to a long-standing issue.
Dr Apurva Thakur is an Assistant Professor of Law at SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai. Her academic interests include constitutional law, legal education reform, and regulatory governance.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
