Shortage of attendance: Delhi HC underscores importance of attending lectures, disallows law student to appear for exams

The student’s father, also a lawyer, who was present during the hearing asked the court to take a lenient view.

However, Justice Narula asked him if he had questioned his son about the shortage of attendance. “Classes are where you get trained to take up the profession. Have you questioned your son? Nobody is questioning his intelligence…why are you standing up for him? He is attending 50 per cent of his classes,” the court said.

The court went on to say, “He is grown up. He is 24(years old). This is when you face the world. It will be an important message for him. Let him stay home”.

Noting the submissions of the father of the student, who was present during the hearing, the court said, the father of the petitioner has expressed his dismay and urged the court to take a lenient view considering the fact that the decision of the university would prolong his son’s course and result in wastage of six precious months. “The court, however, remains unconvinced as the petitioner has attended classes sporadically throughout the semester, and the minimum attendance criteria is a requirement that cannot be glossed over. Importance of attending lectures for imbibing the syllabus/curriculum in a given semester, the most efficient way of learning, must be underscored,” the Delhi High Court said.

The student’s case was that his right hand got fractured while playing football in November last year and that on medical examination he was advised bed rest till December 16, 2022. It was argued that he could not attend classes for “reasons beyond his control” and due to this “unexpected injury” he should be allowed to appear in the semester exams. It was also argued that the detention order does not give any reasons for detaining the student.

The court noted that the medical certificate relied upon by the student which advised bed rest between November 16 and December 16 was issued on December 30. However, whether this advice was given in previous prescriptions issued by the doctor was not “discernible”.

Delhi University argued that while the student should have had “minimum 70% attendance” as per the rules, he had secured an attendance of 46.94% only and therefore he is not entitled to any benefit. The counsel for DU on instructions submitted that even if the student was to be given the benefit for the classes he had missed, his attendance would only rise up to 59 per cent.

After going through the data on the student’s attendance submitted by DU’s counsel, the court observed that he had attended only 123 out of 262 lectures. Rejecting the medical ground urged by the student the HC said, “However, as held in Naincy Sagar (supra), the minimum attendance requirement of 70% gives a student some leeway to skip or abstain from attending 30% of the lectures for variety of reasons ranging from sickness, a tragedy in the family, unforeseen circumstances or other reasons beyond the control of the student”. The court observed that even if this is applied his attendance would not meet the 70 per cent minimum attendance requirement, which is required to sit in the exams.