HC allows law student thrown out over low attendance take remaining exams

A division bench of justices RI Chagla and Advait Sethna permitted the student, Vinayak Thorat, to continue with his first semester examinations after observing that “the arbitrary action of the respondent college is in violation of the settled law as well as being violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.”

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday allowed a first-year law student, who was allegedly forcibly removed from his examination hall due to low attendance, to appear for his remaining semester exams, holding that the college failed to follow the prescribed procedure before debarring him.

HC allows law student thrown out over low attendance take remaining exams

A division bench of justices RI Chagla and Advait Sethna permitted the student, Vinayak Thorat, to continue with his first semester examinations after observing that “the arbitrary action of the respondent college (Karnataka Lingayat Education Society’s College of Law) is in violation of the settled law as well as being violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.”

Thorat had approached the high court earlier in February, claiming that he was asked to leave the examination hall on February 3 when he appeared for his first-semester paper, despite holding a valid hall ticket.

His counsel argued that the college had not followed the procedure prescribed by the University of Mumbai, which requires communicating a debarment order to a student at least 10 days before the scheduled examination.

The counsel also highlighted a Delhi High Court ruling in November 2025 in Sushant Rohilla’s case, which held that no law student enrolled in a recognised institution in India should be barred from taking examinations solely on the ground of not meeting the minimum attendance threshold. Rohilla, a law student, died by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from taking the semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance.

The college opposed the plea, citing University Circular No. UG/01 of 2014 and Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which mandate a minimum 75% attendance. It also claimed that Thorat met the principal and was informed that his attendance issue was not resolved.

However, the high court noted that the college did not follow the stipulated procedure and held the action to be legally untenable. The bench directed the college and the university to allow Thorat to appear for the remaining papers and to arrange a re-examination for the missed subject.