Delhi High Court Rules: No Law College Can Stop Students from Appearing in Exams Due to Attendance Shortage - By Gaurav Paliwal

 

In a landmark and unprecedented decision that is bound to create ripples across the entire landscape of legal education in India, the Delhi High Court has categorically ruled that no law college, university, or institution functioning under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India or any affiliating university shall deny any law student the right to appear in examinations merely on the ground of attendance shortage, stating that such denial directly infringes upon the fundamental right to education and the constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and justice. The judgment, delivered on Wednesday by the Hon’ble Justice Nupur Thapliyal, came in response to a series of petitions filed by law students from different institutions under Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), who had been barred from sitting for their semester examinations despite fulfilling other academic requirements. 

The Court observed that while attendance requirements are important for maintaining discipline and ensuring regular engagement in academic activities, they cannot be used as punitive tools to deprive students of their opportunity to be evaluated based on their merit and knowledge. The bench underscored that education, particularly legal education, must be inclusive, participatory, and centered on learning outcomes rather than mechanical compliance with attendance registers. The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the larger constitutional framework that protects the right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and it further emphasized that denying students access to examinations merely because of attendance deficiency is arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Court stated, “Education is not a privilege to be withheld at the discretion of institutions; it is a right that must be preserved and promoted with fairness and empathy. Law colleges must adopt educationally sound and humane approaches to discipline, rather than exclusionary practices that cause irreversible harm to students’ futures.” The Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex regulatory body for legal education, to re-examine its attendance regulations and to consider modern academic realities such as hybrid learning modes, medical emergencies, personal hardships, and professional training opportunities that often result in unavoidable absences. In doing so, the Court observed that rigid attendance norms may no longer align with the evolving character of legal education, which increasingly emphasizes research, internships, and court exposure as essential components of practical learning. 

The judgment further added that institutions must explore alternative ways to ensure academic accountability — such as remedial lectures, online participation records, academic counseling, or special projects — instead of resorting to draconian measures like examination disqualification. The bench took serious note of cases where students with legitimate reasons for short attendance, including medical conditions, family emergencies, or participation in moot court competitions, were denied examination entry, and remarked that such institutional conduct reflects a mechanical and insensitive approach inconsistent with the ethos of educational fairness. The Court clarified that while attendance cannot be completely disregarded, it should not become an absolute precondition that overrides all other considerations of merit and circumstance. It urged colleges to implement transparent and compassionate mechanisms for attendance relaxation and to ensure that students are not left in academic limbo due to procedural rigidity. The judgment also highlighted the broader issue of institutional accountability and administrative discretion in higher education, observing that universities must not act in a manner that defeats the purpose of learning. “Colleges and universities are custodians of education, not gatekeepers of opportunity,” the Court noted, emphasizing that administrative efficiency must always serve the ends of justice, not the other way around. 

This verdict is expected to have far-reaching consequences not only for law colleges in Delhi but also for other states where similar attendance-based restrictions have led to widespread student protests and litigations in recent years. Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a progressive step towards reforming the culture of attendance-based exclusion in legal education. Speaking to Vidhiwaq Standards, senior advocate and education policy analyst Ravi Menon said, “This decision could mark a new chapter in Indian academia, where students are finally seen as learners, not defaulters. The High Court has rightly recognized that attendance is a means to learning, not an end in itself.” Similarly, student representatives have celebrated the ruling as a long-overdue acknowledgment of their struggles. Ananya Sharma, President of the Delhi Law Students’ Forum, described the order as a “historic relief for thousands of law students who were humiliated, penalized, and deprived of their exam rights simply because of attendance technicalities.” She further added that this verdict restores faith in judicial protection of student rights and sends a clear message that education systems must adapt to human realities. Several law teachers have also expressed cautious optimism, noting that while attendance discipline remains important, this ruling will compel institutions to shift toward more flexible and student-centered models of learning. 

In its concluding directions, the Court instructed all law colleges under Delhi University, GGSIPU, and other affiliated universities to immediately issue fresh examination permissions to any student previously barred due to attendance shortage, provided that the student has completed the necessary coursework and internal assessments. It also ordered the universities to submit a compliance report within a fixed timeframe, ensuring that no eligible student is left out of the examination process. The judgment additionally recommended that the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Bar Council of India jointly develop new attendance guidelines that balance academic discipline with student welfare, particularly in light of digital learning developments and the post-pandemic educational environment. The ruling has also reignited national debates over the purpose of attendance rules in professional education, with some commentators suggesting that the decision could inspire similar petitions in other states and universities. Critics of attendance-based exclusion argue that the practice disproportionately affects students from economically weaker backgrounds, those with health conditions, and those engaged in internships or legal aid work, which are themselves essential to the study of law. By contrast, defenders of strict attendance norms contend that regular participation fosters discipline and peer learning. 

However, the Delhi High Court’s judgment appears to strike a middle ground, reinforcing the idea that attendance should encourage academic engagement, not serve as a punitive barrier to academic progress. As of now, neither the Bar Council of India nor the affected universities have issued an official response to the verdict, but sources suggest that the BCI may soon convene a special meeting to review its attendance-related regulations under Schedule III of the Legal Education Rules, 2008. Meanwhile, law students across Delhi and other states have taken to social media to express gratitude and relief, calling the ruling a “turning point in student rights jurisprudence.” The decision, while focused on legal education, is expected to have persuasive influence across other disciplines as well, potentially prompting a wider conversation about student autonomy, academic flexibility, and institutional accountability in Indian higher education. 

The Delhi High Court’s order thus not only offers immediate relief to affected law students but also lays down an enduring precedent affirming that education in a democratic society must be governed by empathy, reason, and equity rather than bureaucracy. With this bold and forward-looking ruling, the judiciary has once again reaffirmed its role as the guardian of fairness in education, reminding institutions that the true measure of a university lies not in its attendance records but in its commitment to nurturing justice, knowledge, and human dignity.