New Delhi, The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on pleas challenging the Delhi High Court judgment which said that no law college or university can bar students from appearing in examinations due to a lack of minimum attendance.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta was hearing separate petitions challenging the high court’s verdict on November 3 last year.
“Judgment/order reserved. It will be open for the parties to file written briefs within two weeks,” the Supreme Court bench said.
On May 26, the top court stayed a paragraph of the high court verdict, which had ruled that no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of a lack of minimum attendance.
“In the meantime, the effect and operation of the paragraph no 249 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively,” the apex court said in its order passed in May.
The high court had also asked the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate mandatory attendance norms for the three-year and five-year LLB courses.
The high court said it was of the strong view that attendance norms for education in general and legal education in particular cannot be made so stringent that they lead to mental trauma, let alone the death of a student.
It delivered the judgment while disposing of a suo motu petition, initiated by the Supreme Court and transferred to the high court, following law student Sushant Rohilla’s death by suicide in 2016.
Rohilla, a third-year law student, hanged himself to death at his Delhi home on August 10, 2016, after his college allegedly barred him from sitting for the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance. He left behind a note, saying he was a failure and did not wish to live.
The high court had directed that it would be mandatory for all educational institutions and universities to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2023.
Observing that Grievance Redressal Committees were for safeguarding the interests of students, including their mental health, it had directed the University Grants Commission to initiate consultations and consider amending its regulations.
The high court had said the Bar Council of India should incorporate the modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates and attending court hearings.
It had said that no law college, university or institution should be permitted to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Legal Education Rules. PTI
