Sushant Rohilla suicide case: What Delhi High Court attendance ruling asks of students, varsities and teachers

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held that attendance cannot be a mandatory prerequisite for sitting in examinations. The ruling reshapes the traditional relationship between learning, freedom and responsibility.

The case began as a letter to the Chief Justice of India after the tragic suicide of a young law student. Over time, it evolved into a deeper judicial reflection on the culture of rigidity that has permeated higher education. Through sustained consultation with the Bar Council of India, the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education, the court transformed individual anguish into systemic reform. It affirmed that law guided by compassion can become an instrument of healing.

From regulation to reflection

The judgment recognises what many institutions have been slow to accept. Education has changed. Hybrid classrooms, research-based learning and global networks have altered what participation looks like. Physical attendance can no longer be the sole marker of seriousness. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 had already pointed toward flexibility, interdisciplinarity and student well-being.

The court noted that education is no longer confined to classrooms or textbooks and now includes practical and experiential learning. By barring universities from preventing students from taking exams solely due to low attendance and by directing the Ministry of Education to review existing norms, the court dismantled a system that rewarded compliance over curiosity. Its core idea is simple: education should thrive in freedom, not fear.

A humane compact for learning

The judgment goes further than procedural reform. It articulates an ethic of empathy in educational governance. Attendance, the court held, should be encouraged through engagement, not enforced through punishment. Universities have been asked to strengthen grievance redressal and counselling systems, placing mental health at the centre of campus life.

This shifts education from regulation to relationship. A classroom is not only a site for instruction but a community built on trust and dialogue. With freedom comes responsibility, and students, teachers and institutions must share the task of making this freedom meaningful.

The teacher’s dilemma

The court’s empathy for students is vital, but it also exposes the often unseen vulnerability of teachers. Teaching has always been an act of faith, sustained by students who listen, question and engage. When that engagement fades, the silence is not only physical but deeply human.

In a world where attendance is optional, teachers confront the fear of becoming irrelevant. Many devote long hours to preparing classes and mentoring students, only to face indifferent participation or empty rooms. The shift from compulsion to autonomy asks teachers to reinvent themselves, moving from monitoring compliance to mentoring curiosity and from enforcing discipline to facilitating thought.

Universities must support this transition. Teachers need training in technology, inclusive pedagogy and inventive teaching methods. The law has created space for freedom, but institutions must create the structures that allow teachers and students to use that freedom well.

Teachers also deserve respect, not as hierarchy but as recognition of their role in shaping intellectual and ethical growth. Article 51A of the Constitution urges every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry. For students, this is a call to engage sincerely with learning and to meet teachers with responsibility. Freedom from attendance cannot mean freedom from effort.

When students attend class not out of compulsion but out of respect for the knowledge and the person imparting it, they restore vitality to the classroom. Learning has never been solitary. It is a shared act of trust between teacher and student.

Some may wonder whether teachers are still needed in an era of artificial intelligence and digital abundance. The Delhi High Court’s judgment offers an indirect but clear answer. Teachers remain indispensable. Technology can provide information but not interpretation. It can deliver content but cannot build judgment or guide ethical application. Algorithms can measure attendance. They cannot measure insight.

A teacher’s value lies not in transmitting facts but in shaping understanding and nurturing empathy. In an age of information overload, teachers become even more essential.

The judgment ultimately seeks mutual accountability. It frees students from needless rigidity while reinforcing responsibility. It imagines education as a partnership built on trust and engagement.

Tagore’s vision of an education where the mind is without fear resonates strongly here. By humanising attendance, the court affirms that learning is not about physical presence alone. It is about intellectual and emotional participation. It is where teachers find renewed purpose through engaged students, and students rediscover respect through guided learning.

In the end, the court’s idea of presence is not about registers. It is a reminder that education, like justice, must rest on empathy. Classrooms, like courts, must remain places where every voice matters and where teachers continue as custodians of collective wisdom.

(Prof Dr Shruti Bedi is professor of Constitutional Law and Director, University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University.
Views are personal)

From the homepage

Nitish Kumar Cabinet Portfolio 2025: Samrat Choudhary given Bihar Home Ministry, CM keeps general administration

Prashant Kishor’s promise to ensure Jan Suraaj doesn’t run out of money: ‘Will donate my…’

Govt enforces four labour codes, rules expected in a week