The issue gained focus after the Delhi High Court’s judgment in In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla (2025) revisited how universities should enforce attendance and disciplinary rules.
The judgment stressed that disciplinary powers must align with constitutional values, fairness, and student welfare.
Background of the Case
- In 2016, a law student was barred from writing exams due to attendance shortage, despite medical reasons and academic performance.
- This resulted in severe emotional distress and eventually suicide.
- The Court treated the case as a public interest matter, examining whether universities use disciplinary action in a fair and just manner.
Key Observations of the Delhi High Court
- Attendance itself was not the issue; the issue was how attendance rules were enforced.
- Many institutions debar students automatically once attendance drops below a required percentage.
- The Court emphasized:
- Universities are public authorities.
- They must act with constitutional accountability.
- Decisions must be fair, reasoned, proportionate, and just.
This aligns with Article 14 (Non-arbitrariness and Equality before Law) and Principles of Natural Justice.
Constitutional and Legal Principles Involved
1. Article 14 – Rule of Non-Arbitrariness
- Government bodies (including public universities) cannot act on rigid, mechanical rules.
- Actions must consider individual circumstances.
2. Procedural Fairness / Natural Justice
Two core principles:
- Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be heard)
- Reasoned Decision-making
3. Right to Dignity (Article 21)
- Education spaces must respect mental and emotional well-being of students.
What Did the Court Clarify About Attendance Rules?
- The 70% attendance requirement under Legal Education Rules remains valid.
- However, strict mechanical enforcement without:
- warning,
- counselling,
- support,
- chance to explain
is unconstitutional.
- Universities must offer:
- Remedial classes
- Medical/emotional support
- Grievance Redress Committees
- Opportunity for representation before any punitive action
Debarring students should be the last step, not the first.
Implications for Universities
1. Institutional Changes
- Attendance enforcement must be flexible and context-sensitive.
- Universities should create supportive environments, not punitive ones.
2. Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
- Must include student representatives.
- Debarment/punishment must be personalized and reasoned, not automatic.
3. Academic Culture Change
- Attendance should be linked with engagement, not just physical presence.
- Recognized academic work (legal internships, research, court activities) should count towards attendance.
4. Alignment with National Policy
- National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocates:
- Flexible learning paths
- Student well-being
- Academic autonomy with accountability
The Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider strict attendance norms in light of NEP reforms.
Significance
- Shift to Student-Centric Governance: The judgment moves universities away from rigid, punitive discipline and towards policies that prioritize student well-being and academic support.
- Promotes Counselling Mechanisms: It encourages institutions to provide counselling, mentorship, and emotional support instead of instantly imposing penalties.
- Strengthens Procedural Fairness: Any action such as debarment must follow due process, giving students the right to be heard and the right to appeal decisions.
- Encourages Dialogue-Based Conflict Resolution: Universities are expected to address attendance concerns through discussion, guidance, and flexible academic options rather than intimidation or threat of suspension.
- Fosters Inclusive and Compassionate Learning Environment: By recognizing challenges like health issues, stress, or personal hardship, the judgment promotes an educational culture built on empathy, dignity, and mutual respect.
Conclusion
The Sushant Rohilla judgment highlights that educational institutions must balance discipline with compassion and constitutional responsibility. Attendance norms should encourage learning—not penalize students unfairly. Strengthening fairness, representation, and support systems is essential for building humane and inclusive academic environments.
This topic is available in detail on our main website.
