E-Paper
Law college hostels cannot become mere ‘boarding and lodging facilities’: SC
A Delhi HC judgment of 2025 had held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations merely due to shortage of attendance.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious reservations over a Delhi high court judgment of 2025 which held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations merely due to shortage of attendance, observing that such a view could reduce law college hostels into “just boarding and lodging facilities” where students no longer feel the need to attend classes.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi agreed to examine the correctness of the Delhi HC ruling while issuing notice on a plea filed by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the judgment.
At the same time, the bench declined to stay the high court verdict for now. “We are not suspending that order. We will hear the matter, decide and lay down the correct position of law,” the bench observed.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for NMIMS, argued that the Delhi HC ruling had virtually rendered attendance norms meaningless and was creating serious difficulties for law institutions across the country.
“The high court says no attendance is required anywhere. People don’t want to go to colleges. I am wondering why we went to college then,” Rohatgi submitted.
The petition by NMIMS was filed through advocate Kanu Agrawal.
The bench appeared broadly in agreement with the concern and remarked that if such a position were accepted, National Law University hostels would become “just boarding and lodging facilities”.
The matter was tagged with a pending batch of petitions challenging Bar Council of India circulars requiring criminal background disclosures, declarations regarding simultaneous academic pursuits and compliance with attendance norms for law students.
The controversy traces back to a November 2025 judgment of the Delhi HC, which held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or continuing academic progression solely because of inadequate attendance.
That ruling had emerged from proceedings linked to the 2016 suicide of a law student, where allegations were raised regarding harassment over attendance shortages. The high court had observed that attendance regulations should not be enforced with such rigidity that they cause mental distress to students or contribute to extreme consequences.
It had also directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider mandatory attendance norms for three-year and five-year LLB programmes in light of the National Education Policy, 2020, and evolving educational frameworks.
Relying on the division bench judgment, a single judge of the Delhi high court had subsequently granted relief earlier this year to several University of Delhi law students who were either denied permission to sit for examinations or had their results withheld due to shortage of attendance.
Before the Supreme Court, NMIMS contended that the Delhi High Court ruling had opened “floodgates” of litigation by students seeking permission to write examinations despite failing to meet minimum attendance requirements, thereby undermining academic discipline and institutional autonomy.
The plea stressed that classroom teaching remains central to legal education, especially in integrated five-year law programmes where students enter directly after school. It argued that lectures, tutorials, moot court exercises and practical training cannot be fully substituted through internships, competitions or co-curricular activities alone.
The petition also pointed to Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, which prescribes a minimum attendance requirement of 70%, while already permitting limited condonation up to 65% in exceptional circumstances.
The college further relied on legal education practices in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore to argue that mandatory attendance norms are globally recognised as an integral component of professional legal training.
Notably, the Supreme Court had already flagged concern over the Delhi high court ruling during an earlier hearing on May 7 in the pending challenge to BCI circulars. The bench, led by Justice Nath, had then remarked that the decision had created “chaos” and become a matter of concern for National Law Universities.
“Students are not going to the classes... NLUs are known for their good faculty... if the students do not attend, what’s the point?” the bench had observed.
