By Ashwin Mishra
The Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of In re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla was delivered in November 2025, where the Court effectively diluted the mandatory attendance requirements in Indian law schools. In the immediate aftermath of the verdict, there was a great deal of uncertainty over the implications of the ruling vis-à-vis the various stakeholders in the legal education framework. Six months and a semester since, after the knee-jerk reactions have had time to pause and reflect, the question can now be considered in a new light – should physical attendance presence be a precondition for legal education or is it an outdated proxy for learning?
While the case that triggered this shift offers important context, the real question is what purpose does mandating attendance serve and is there a cost to this demand?
For the purpose of this discussion, we must look past the plain language of the Rules of Legal Education that the Bar Council of India subscribes to and analyze the principle behind the policy itself. Proponents of mandatory attendance argue that law is not merely a body of knowledge, but a mode of thinking cultivated through dialogue. Classrooms in law schools are spaces of contestation, where ideas are sharpened through debate and not passively absorbed. Regular attendance, in this context, ensures exposure to diverse perspectives and fosters habits of diligence and discipline which are essential to legal practice. The classroom provides a platform for structured learning and ensures that students are well-versed with the basics prior to enrolling to practice at the bar. Removing attendance requirements risks widening inequalities, privileging self-directed learners while leaving others adrift. Attendance also serves an institutional function. It signals seriousness of purpose and creates a baseline expectation of engagement. Legal Education in India has historically struggled with uneven quality, and mandatory attendance, however imperfect, acts as a minimal safeguard against complete disengagement. Without it, there is a legitimate concern that law schools may devolve into mere credentialing bodies, with degrees detached from meaningful academic participation.
Yet, critics of mandatory attendance question whether physical presence truly correlates with intellectual engagement. The reality of many law classrooms, which are marked by rote lectures, outdated pedagogy and minimal interaction, undermines the assumption that attendance equals learning. Students often attend classes to meet regulatory thresholds rather than to engage, turning attendance into a performative exercise. In this light, compulsory attendance can appear less as a pedagogical tool and more as bureaucratic inertia.
Moreover, legal education today extends far beyond the classroom. Internships, moot courts, research projects and clinical work, among others, arguably contribute equally, if not more towards professional competence. A rigid attendance regime often penalizes precisely these forms of experiential learning. Students are forced to choose between acquiring practical skills and complying with formal requirements, which is a trade-off that seems increasingly untenable in a profession that values applied knowledge.
There is also a question of autonomy, as students in universities, especially professional programmes, are adults who are capable of making choices about their learning. Mandatory attendance can feel paternalistic, and can undermine the very independence that legal training seeks to cultivate. This then leaves us in a conundrum as to the ideal way forward on the issue of attendance in law schools.
One perspective surely is that legal educators must self-introspect as to the reason behind the scorched earth demand for attendance and try to evolve new pedagogical strategies that can inspire students to want to attend classroom discussions. Syllabi that move beyond the theory and the black letter of the law while simultaneously increasing the involvement of practitioners’ perspectives in the teaching process can be some of the ways by which this goal can be accomplished.
At the same time, I believe in a world devoid of mandatory attendance in law schools, the burden of educating the next generation of legal practitioners cannot be placed solely on the educators in law universities. If practical exposure is deemed to be an important part of the legal education experience, practitioners must then play a more active role in the teaching process, and share the responsibility of educating aspiring lawyers during their formative years.
Clearly, the choice is not binary. The challenge lies in moving beyond attendance as a crude metric toward more meaningful indicators of engagement. Abolishing mandatory attendance without meaningful pedagogical evolution risks lowering standards and retaining it without reform risks entrenching mediocrity. The future of legal education in India depends of resolving this tension, not by choosing between presence and learning, but by finding a way to ensure that they meaningfully coincide with each other.
Ashwin Mishra is the Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Law at Jindal Global Law School.
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.
