© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Delhi High Court on Law Student Attendance Rules: The Delhi High Court on Monday said legal education does not merely require rote learning and in order to obtain multi-dimensional learning, mere presence in the classroom is not sufficient and has to be coupled with practical training.
“This Court is strongly of the view that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent, so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone death of a student,” a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma said.
The high court was deciding a suo motu case, initiated by the Supreme Court, in relation to the death of law student Sushant Rohilla by suicide in 2016 after being allegedly forced to repeat an academic year due to lack of requisite attendance.
“Legal education does not merely require rote-learning or one-sided teaching. It has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law as also implementation thereof. In order to obtain such holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required, nor can be sufficient,” the bench said.
Notably, the high court issued a series of directions in relation to mandatory attendance norms existing in the legal educational institutions.
While issuing directions to the Bar Council of India (BCI), the bench asked BCI to undertake a re-evaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the 3-year and 5-year LLB courses in India in line with the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 and also the 2003 University Grants Commission Regulations which contemplate flexibility in attendance requirements.
“As part of this process, the BCI shall also incorporate modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates, attending court hearings etc.,” it added.
“The classroom education has to be coupled with practical training, knowledge of court systems, prison systems, legal aid, gaining practical experience through participation in moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates, attending court hearings etc.”, the order read.
The high court found it “incumbent upon the BCI” to ensure dean of the universities, head of various departments, professors, carry out obligations in terms of the BCI Rules, 2008 were met in a way that the students get sufficient opportunity to make up for the attendance that they might lose out on during the course of the semester.
“By holding lesser number of classes than those are prescribed, students in effect are compelled to attend 100% of all classes taken by teachers – in effect taking away the flexibility of 30% which is available to them,” it said.
The high court underlined that the language of Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, “was extremely strict in nature and leaves little room for relaxation”.
“In fact, the wording of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 is stringent to the extent that if the students do not attend 70% of the classes, the only consequence shall be to bar them from taking examinations altogether – there are no ameliorative measures of making up the attendance,” it noted.
“It is necessary to acknowledge that there is enormous learning in moot courts, seminars, debates, practical training in Courts, internships, etc., for a law student. While a student is studying law as an academic subject, the other
two dimensions of practical applications are learning through moot courts, internship, visits to courts, etc.”
The court, therefore, said Rule 12, dealing with mandatory attendance requirements, of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, is “quite inflexible” and “surely requires” the re-consideration of the BCI.
The bench highlighted that in the NEP, 2020, there was no mention of mandatory attendance.
“In fact, ‘attendance’ finds a mention only in the context of teachers whose performance is to be assessed on the basis of various factors including peer review, attendance, etc.,” it noted.
The high court continued, “It is striking that the NEP, 2020 which deals with and contemplates various issues that are key to development of a holistic and multidisciplinary learning environment, does not require students to attend the entire course in-person to achieve the said objective.”
The high court had been hearing the matter since 2017, and issued various directions from time to time with respect to reforms necessary to be brought about in institutes of higher education, to create an environment conducive to learning and effective handling of issues plaguing students.
The court noted that a large number of educational institutions had come forward and placed their stands repeatedly on record with respected to the constitution of the grievance redressal committees and the attendance norms.
“There are several recent unfortunate incidents, which have been reported where due to mental health issues, which may have been triggered due to many causes, students have committed suicide while pursuing their studies,” it said.
The high court illustrated it by recording the incidents of suicides reported from NIT Jamshedpur, IIT Guwahati and NLU Delhi and referred to the articles published in news media outlets, including The Indian Express.
Taking a grim view of the situation, the Supreme Court had constituted a National Task Force to address the issues relating to mental health of the students, which was also directed to prepare a report. The task force was also entrusted to conduct surprise inspections of any institute of higher education.
