Mandatory Attendance in Law Schools Debate
Recent debate surrounding mandatory attendance in law schools reflects a deeper conflict between the traditional classroom-centric model of legal education and the emerging professional, technology-driven, and practice-orientated approach envisioned under NEP 2020.
Background of the Attendance Controversy
The debate arose after the Supreme Court’s observations on the Delhi High Court judgement holding that no law school can bar students from appearing in examinations solely due to a shortage of attendance.
However, the High Court did not nullify the requirement of minimum attendance; rather, it only restrained law schools from debarring students, considering such an approach excessively harsh amid rising concerns regarding student mental health.
Delhi High Court Clarification on Attendance
The Delhi High Court later clarified that students with zero per cent attendance can’t claim relaxation[i] of the Sushant Rohilla judgement.
Supreme Court Observations on Law Colleges
While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition challenging the judgement, the Supreme Court expressed concern that law colleges may become ‘just boarding and lodging facilities’ if such a position is accepted.
Supreme Court Stay Order Dated 26.05.2026
On 26.05.2026 the Apex Court stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court judgement.
However, the same shall be effective prospectively [ii].
Key Issues in the Law School Attendance Debate
| Issue | Details |
|---|---|
| Mandatory Attendance | Debate over whether a shortage of attendance should prevent students from appearing in examinations. |
| Mental Health Concerns | Courts considered the harsh impact of strict attendance rules on student mental health. |
| Professional Legal Education | Discussion on balancing classroom learning with technology-driven and practice-orientated education under NEP 2020. |
| Judicial Intervention | Both the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court have examined the legality and consequences of attendance-related restrictions. |
Major Developments at a Glance
- The Delhi High Court held that students should not be barred from examinations solely for shortage of attendance.
- The High Court did not remove the requirement of minimum attendance.
- Student mental health concerns played a role in the judicial reasoning.
- Delhi High Court clarified that students with zero attendance cannot seek relaxation.
- The Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the future of classroom-based legal education.
- On 26.05.2026, the Apex Court stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court judgement prospectively.
Statutory Backing of Mandatory Attendance
The Bar Council of India is empowered under section 49(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to make rules to lay down the standards of legal education in India. In furtherance of power given, BCI introduced a mandatory attendance requirement under part IV of the BCI Rules. The same standards and rules have to be followed by law schools, as per Rule 12 of the BCI Rules; 70% attendance is required to give semester exams.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Statutory Authority | Section 49(1)(d) of Advocates Act, 1961 |
| Regulatory Body | Bar Council of India (BCI) |
| Relevant Rules | Part IV of BCI Rules |
| Minimum Attendance Requirement | 70% attendance for semester examinations |
Delhi High Court; Stance
The Delhi High Court, by passing a judgement on 03.11.2025 [iii], held that no law student can be barred from giving examinations due to short attendance, along with a direction to the BCI to reconsider mandatory attendance norms in line with the New Education Policy, 2020 (NEP), and the UGC Regulation, 2003. Insofar, the High Court provides ameliorative measures with marks deduction as a last resort. Barring the Law Schools from debarring the students from the exams by the decision of High Court based upon following factors:-
Mental Health
The High Court gave significant weightage to the mental health of students and observed that detention due to low attendance may become an extreme consequence; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s Sukdeb Saha [iv] judgement, which recognised mental health as an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. In the Amit Kumar [v] judgement, the Supreme Court constituted a National Task Force to address the issue related to the mental health of the students.
- Mental health recognised as part of Article 21 rights.
- Detention due to attendance shortage is considered an extreme consequence.
- Supreme Court judgements relied upon for student welfare considerations.
New Education Policy, 2020
The High Court observed that NEP lays greater emphasis on the holistic development and overall well-being of students, and in line with the intent of NEP, detention would be an extreme step for students, especially in light of mental health issues. The Indian vision for education changed with NEP; it envisages practical knowledge, multidisciplinary study and virtual participation with a more flexible framework.
- Focus on holistic development of students.
- Encouragement of multidisciplinary learning.
- Recognition of virtual participation and flexible learning models.
- Greater emphasis on practical knowledge.
UGC Regulations, 2003
Clause 5.8 of the regulation prescribes 75% attendance criteria. However, there is sufficient flexibility, and weightage can be given to tutorials, seminars, practicals, any other prescribed curriculum, etc., which can take place outside the classroom.
| UGC Regulation Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Attendance Requirement | 75% attendance criteria |
| Permissible Flexibility | Tutorials, seminars, practicals and curriculum activities outside classroom |
| Educational Approach | Recognition of broader academic participation |
Professional Education vs Traditional Classroom Model
Education is no longer restricted to classroom teaching or textbook education and, in fact, has been extended to more practical areas. The addition of skills has been given greater focus in recent times through programmes such as SKILL INDIA. NEP 2020 highlights the necessity of incorporating technology-based learning methods to advance teaching and learning by permitting ‘blended models of learning’. In order to obtain holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required nor can be sufficient. 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.
Importance of Practical Legal Training
- Practical training and experiential learning.
- Knowledge of court systems and prison systems.
- Participation in legal aid activities.
- Experience through moot courts and seminars.
- Engagement in model parliament and debates.
- Attendance at court hearings for real-world exposure.
Classroom Teaching and Role of Teachers
No doubt there is no replacement for classroom teaching, which develops the overall student, including his social behaviour, interactions, discipline, communication skills, networking and mentorship from highly qualified teachers. Teaching today faces a challenge from AI. However, AI can never provide the personalised attention to a student that an empathetic teacher can. The online mode will especially be insufficient for students of highly technical subjects like law. The attendance relaxation mandated by the HC will, however, encourage the online mode [vi]. There is no substitute for classroom teaching. Conducting classes in the institutions is a dynamic system which keeps evolving over time. It can be said with certainty that reading books prescribed in the syllabus/curriculum alone can never be enough for imparting and imbibing knowledge, which is always a two-way street. Interactive sessions of the students with their teachers during the classes have a deep and lasting effect on their intellectual growth. The cut and thrust of open house debates and discussions, questions and answers posed by the students to the teachers conducting classes and tutorials is a precursor to the experience needed by a law student when he ultimately prepares a brief and appears in court to advance arguments. [vii]
Key Observations on Classroom Learning
- Classroom teaching supports discipline and communication skills.
- Teachers provide mentorship and personalised guidance.
- AI cannot replace empathetic teacher-student interaction.
- Interactive discussions improve intellectual growth.
- Debates and tutorials prepare students for courtroom advocacy.
- Law education requires practical and collaborative learning.
Judicial Restraint in Academic Matters
The LLB course is a professional course in which the candidates have to ensure regular attendance of lectures, and those who do not attend the stipulated percentage of lectures would not even be eligible for enrolment as members of the Bar. Such being the importance given to the attendance of lectures, there is no question of the requirement stipulated by the rules being either irrational, unconstitutional or illegal in any manner.
The quality of training which a candidate gets during the time he undergoes the course is directly proportional to the number of lectures that he attends. The failure of a candidate to attend the requisite number of lectures as stipulated by the relevant rules can legitimately disentitle him to claim eligibility for appearing in the examination. [viii]
The Supreme Court in the Neha Anil Bobde [ix] case held that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the court shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts.
The Supreme Court on several occasions has taken the view that courts shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic body, and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision to the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face than the courts generally are. [x]
In the Sushant Rohilla case, HC has found that those judgements were passed prior to NEP and additionally took note of the mental health of students.
Key Observations on Judicial Restraint
- Attendance requirements in legal education are treated as essential for professional training.
- Courts generally avoid interfering in academic matters decided by expert bodies.
- Judicial intervention is limited to cases involving clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations.
- The High Court in the Sushant Rohilla case considered the impact of NEP and student mental health concerns.
Stakeholder Perspectives
This judgement [xi], whether it is right or wrong, has started the debate at the very right time due to technological advancement and social conditions. Governments are even thinking of shifting the system to work from home to save energy resources due to ongoing geopolitical crises.
Student Perspective
Students do face stress in securing internships in reputed offices, and at the same time, when colleges strictly enforce attendance requirements, it becomes a source of mental stress.
Additionally, students wish to participate in competitions, which are also important for developing their legal acumen. The same is a time-consuming process. Lack of administrative support to students during that period also weakens their morale.
College administrations need to be sensitive towards the genuine difficulties faced by students in maintaining attendance.
Some universities do not even have any curative measures for students who miss classes due to serious medical emergencies, compelling them to appear for supplementary examinations in subsequent years, thereby causing additional academic burden along with increased internship pressure.
These grievances need to be addressed by conducting examinations similar to the compartment examinations conducted by CBSE within the same academic year.
Major Challenges Faced by Law Students
- Pressure to secure internships in reputed law offices.
- Strict attendance rules causing mental stress.
- Time-consuming participation in moot courts and competitions.
- Lack of administrative and institutional support.
- Additional burden caused by supplementary examinations.
- Medical emergencies affecting attendance compliance.
Academician Perspective
According to Dr. Aarushi Agarwal, Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, IP University, the degree of law is a professional degree wherein mere practical training is not suffied.
It requires an extensive understanding of the concepts of law, legal doctrines, and jurisprudential essence of legislations existing in India. Practising law further requires the skill to understand judgements passed by our hon’ble courts and the ability to apply the law to the facts of the case.
The aforementioned skill set can be acquired through systematic and organised teaching which is imparted to students in law schools.
Such classroom learning based on exhaustive syllabi, developed by professional and skilled experts and professors, cannot be substituted by any other alternative modes of technology-driven self-learning.
The classroom environment that provides a platform for critical thinking, debate, and interaction is a sine qua non for the growth of a legal professional.
Importance of Classroom Learning in Legal Education
| Aspect | Importance in Legal Education |
|---|---|
| Conceptual Understanding | Helps students understand legal doctrines and jurisprudence. |
| Classroom Interaction | Encourages debate, discussion, and critical thinking. |
| Professional Training | Builds analytical and practical legal skills. |
| Guidance from Experts | Provides structured learning from experienced academicians. |
| Judgment Analysis | Develops the ability to apply legal principles to factual situations. |
Conclusion
The present controversy demonstrates that the future of legal education cannot be shaped through rigid binaries between discipline and flexibility.
A balanced framework must be evolved that preserves academic rigour while also recognising the practical and psychological pressures faced by students, including commuting burdens, internships, professional competition, and inadequate mental health support systems.
Legal education in India must therefore move toward a more inclusive, responsive, and professionally relevant model without diluting institutional standards.
Way Forward for Legal Education in India
- Balance academic discipline with practical flexibility.
- Provide mental health and counselling support for students.
- Create curative mechanisms for genuine attendance shortages.
- Recognise the importance of internships and competitions.
- Maintain academic rigour without compromising professional standards.
- Adopt a more inclusive and responsive legal education framework.
End Notes:
- Aman Bansal v. University of Delhi & Ors., 2026:DHC:4398-DB
- SVKMS Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies v. Bar Council of India, SLP (Crl) No. 009450/2026
- In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student, IP University, 2025:DHC:9600-DB
- Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 893
- Amit Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 384
- Classroom teaching is essential to academic rigour. HC ruling misses that by GS Bajpai, Vice-Chancellor, National Law University Delhi
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/classroom-teaching-is-essential-to-academic-rigour-hc-ruling-misses-that-10452462/ - Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University v. Naincy Sagar & Anr., 2019:DHC:6092-DB
- Kiran Kumari v. University of Delhi, W.P. (C) 9143/2007
- UGC v. Neha Anil Bobde, Civil Appeal No. 8355 of 2013
- University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491
- Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546
- Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284
- In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student, IP University, 2025:DHC:9600-DB
Written By:
- Tapan Nagar, Law Student at GGSIPU &
- Priyanshi Gupta, Law Student at GGSIPU
