The Delhi high court on Monday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to review the mandatory attendance requirements for the three-year and five-year law programmes, concluding that law students should not be prevented from appearing in examinations solely because of attendance shortages.
A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that legal education goes beyond rote learning or one-dimensional teaching, encompassing various facets such as understanding the law, applying it in practice, and implementing it effectively.
The order came pursuant to an alleged suicide in 2016 of a student at Amity Law University, who was barred from taking exams due to insufficient attendance
The high court asked BCI to revise the norms to recognise students’ participation in moot courts, seminars, mock parliaments, debates, and court visits as part of their academic engagement, saying that mere classroom attendance is neither necessary nor sufficient for such holistic learning.
“Mandatory attendance norms also tend to curb creative freedom by forcing students to be in a particular space that is sometimes without any value generation. There’s a need to have a relook, and modify the manner in which mandatory physical attendance is to be perceived, and how attendance not be adapted with the changing times. Instead of barring students from taking examinations, alternative and less stringent methods ought to be explored,” the court said, while pronouncing the verdict.
It added, “The Bar Council of India shall undertake a revaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three year and five year LLB courses in India, in line with the above observations, as also in line with the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and 2023 UGC regulations, which contemplate flexibility. As part of this process, the BCI shall incorporate modification of attendance norms, to enable giving credit to moot court, seminars, mock parliament, debates, and attending court hearings.”
A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.
The court issued the directions while dealing with a plea originally taken up by the Supreme Court in 2016, following the alleged suicide of a student at Amity LawUniversity, who was barred from taking exams due to insufficient attendance. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the high court in March 2017.
The court, in order to safeguard the lives and mental health of students, issued interim directions to law universities and institutions across India. It directed that no student shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from pursuing further academic or career opportunities on the grounds of insufficient attendance. The court also barred any law college, university, or institution from imposing attendance requirements exceeding the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI.
The bench further directed all universities and colleges across the country to establish grievance redressal committees. It also asked the University Grants Commission (UGC) to hold consultations and consider amending its regulations to ensure that students constitute 50% of the total membership of these committees. The court clarified that students should not merely serve as special invitees but as active, full-time members. It also emphasized the need for adequate representation of female students, male students, and individuals of other genders, as deemed appropriate.