10 reasons why Delhi High Court’s ruling will boost well-being of students

The high court also made several observations and directions that squarely fall in favour of students and their well-being.

Here’s a list of 10 such key points.

1. No student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.

2. No law college, university or institution will be allowed to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.

3. The right of students to appear in an examination can be curtailed only on grounds and conditions which are reasonable and not arbitrary.

4. BCI should take steps to enable internships for all students, especially those students belonging to an economically weaker background, remote areas, specially-abled students etc. with no resources to arrange the same.
​
5. BCI directed to finalise the attendance norms for legal education and incorporate modification of attendance norms to grant credit for participating in moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates, attending court hearings, etc.

6. Immediate measures for students studying 3-year and 5-year LLB degree courses in which the college cannot withhold the promotion of the student to the next semester merely due to a shortage of attendance.

7. Law colleges, universities directed to take measures for the regular communication of attendance of students — weekly notice of the students’attendance to be shared with students through an online portal/a mobile app, including on the notice board.

8. A monthly notice should be given to the parents/legal guardian/family members of the student regarding any shortage in the student’s attendance.

9. Even if at the end of a semester, a student fails to qualify the prescribed attendance norm, the college still cannot bar the student.

10. Attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent that they can lead to mental trauma, and the death of a student.

Monday’s ruling also brings down the curtain on the eight-year-old case that began in 2017. The case arose from the death of Sushant Rohilla in 2016 by suicide, after he was allegedly forced to repeat an academic year due to attendance shortage.

The case was transferred from the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court in 2017.

In its order, the high court said that Rohilla has now “left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space.”