Attendance Rule And Future Of Legal Education: Why Supreme Court's Concern Matters

The recent observations of the Supreme Court on attendance rules in law schools have resurrected an important debate on the future of legal education in India. The immediate controversy was triggered by a Delhi High Court ruling that students should not be debarred from examinations merely on the ground of shortage of attendance. But the larger question facing the country is more basic. In an age when artificial intelligence, digital learning platforms and instant access to information rule the roost, does physical attendance in classrooms still count?

The Supreme Court thinks so. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while hearing a challenge by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies to a Delhi High Court judgement, expressed serious reservations about the implications of relaxing attendance norms. Justice Mehta's comment that “law school hostels could be reduced to just boarding and lodging facilities” reflected the concern over the falling participation in classrooms in professional education. The concern is not trivial. Nor is it out of date. Especially after the rapid normalisation of AI tools like ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms students are increasingly of the opinion that lectures can be replaced with summaries, notes, recorded videos and AI generated explanations across universities The old “why go to class when you can find everything on the internet?” logic has never been more popular.

But legal education is not simply the delivery of information. Law is about more than reading statutes or memorising case law. A classroom is where students learn to advocate, to be disciplined, ethical, reasonable and argumentative, to exhibit professional conduct, to work as a team and to respond under pressure. The law school setting exposes students to dissent, debate, uncertainty, and intellectual challenge all of which are essential to becoming effective lawyers, judges, policy makers, or academicians. AI can explain legal doctrines, summarise judgements and draft research notes. What it cannot perfectly recreate is the lived experience of legal training.

A student sitting in a constitutional law lecture knows a lot more than the text of Article 14 or Article 19 or 21. They see how arguments are put together, how uncertainty is removed, how opposing positions are reconciled, and how legal thinking develops in conversation. Moot courts, seminars, internships, drafting exercises and classroom interactions promote habits of responsibility and professionalism that no chatbot can foster on its own. Thus, the observations of the Supreme Court are symptomatic of a deeper institutional anxiety: if attendance norms break down completely, professional education risks becoming transactional rather than transformative.At the same time, the concerns raised by the Delhi High Court also cannot be ignored. The High Court's decision in 2025 was based on proceedings relating to the tragic 2016 suicide of a law student who was allegedly under heavy pressure regarding attendance shortfalls. The judgement pointed out that attendance rules should not be applied so rigidly as to cause mental distress or extreme psychological consequences. This is another important point in the debate.So it's not whether attendance should exist, but how attendance policies should change to meet the times. One cannot forecast the future of legal education upon the basis of outdated ideas of physical presence. Sitting in a classroom a certain number of hours doesn't mean learning is happening. Universities and regulators like the Bar Council of India need to realise that the way students learn today is different. Today's education ecosystem includes hybrid learning, flipped classrooms, simulation-based training, digital participation and AI-assisted legal research. But to give up attendance altogether would be equally dangerous. The answer is to develop a balanced framework that combines flexibility with accountability. Attendance policies may need to be reformed, not eliminated. Universities can think about: separate attendance requirements for practical and theoretical courses; credits for clinical legal education, research projects and internships; hybrid models of participation with monitoring; structured mentorship and counselling for students with mental health challenges; AI-integrated pedagogy versus AI-resistant pedagogy; and more focus on classroom engagement than physical presence.

AI will inevitably change legal education over the next decade. The question is whether universities will adapt wisely, or allow institutional discipline to collapse altogether. The involvement of the Supreme Court could be a game-changer in setting that balance. If executed well, this debate can take Indian legal education to a more humane, technologically adaptive and professionally rigorous future. Done badly, it could result in a generation of law graduates who can access information, but lack the habits, discipline and interpersonal skills required for the legal profession. After all, the courtroom needs more than an AI prompt can offer.

Author is an Assistant Professor at School of Law Bennett University. Views are personal.