Attendance, Classes And Law Students: Rethinking The 75% Rule In Indian Legal Education

“Debarred list,” “shortage of attendance,” and “not eligible for exam” — these are words that every law student in India has come to know too well. The 75% attendance rule, mandated by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC), was originally intended to promote regularity and discipline. However, what was once meant to encourage classroom engagement has today turned into a rigid barrier that often punishes students more than it educates them. Across law colleges, students are being stopped from writing their exams not because they lack sincerity or capability, but simply because they fall short of a number.

Many of these students have genuine reasons — medical emergencies, financial challenges, family responsibilities, or participation in activities like moot courts, internships, and legal aid programs. Ironically, the same institutions that encourage these activities penalize students for pursuing them. The strict enforcement of the 75% rule has started to restrict extracurricular involvement, suppressing the very spirit of exploration that a professional course like law demands.

The problem is even more acute in five-year integrated law programmes, where students enter the course at the young age of 17, still discovering themselves and their role in society. These formative years are meant to be a time for personality expansion — developing confidence, communication, empathy, and awareness through participation in debates, moots, cultural events, internships, and civil society activities. However, the rigid application of the attendance rule often restricts this natural growth. Students who engage in research, internships, or social service are frequently penalized for missing classes, even when those activities contribute more meaningfully to their development. By confining students to attendance registers and classroom walls, the current system discourages experiential learning and stifles holistic personality development, which is essential for producing socially aware, responsible, and dynamic lawyers.

Recognising this harsh reality, the Delhi High Court, in a significant 2025 judgment, held that no law student should be barred from appearing in examinations solely due to shortage of attendance. The Court observed that attendance rules cannot be so inflexible as to cause mental distress, recalling the tragic Sushant Rohilla (2016) case, where a young law student died by suicide after being debarred. The Bench directed the Bar Council of India to review its attendance norms, emphasizing that education today extends beyond the four walls of the classroom. The judgment reaffirmed that legal education should aim to create thoughtful and compassionate professionals, not merely rule-abiding students.

Even Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, reflecting on his student days, candidly shared, “In Amravati, I think I might have gone to college maybe half a dozen times. One of my friends used to mark my presence. Don't go by what your ranks are in examinations. These results don't determine what level of success you will achieve. It is your determination, hard work, dedication and commitment to the profession that matter.” His remarks are not a justification for absenteeism but a reminder that learning is far more than physical presence — it is about curiosity, dedication, and purpose.

From a constitutional perspective, strict attendance rules also raise questions under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee fairness, reasonableness, and protection from arbitrariness. Courts have consistently recognized the need for a balanced and humane approach to educational regulations. In Tripurari Kumar Jha v. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (2024), the Delhi High Court held that attendance norms must be applied with fairness and flexibility in cases involving genuine reasons. Similarly, in Pranshu Tripathi v. University of Delhi (2019), the Court emphasized that while discipline is important, denying a student the right to appear for examinations on minor technical grounds could amount to arbitrary action. Building on these precedents, the Delhi High Court in 2025 reaffirmed that legal education must adapt to the evolving needs of the time and cannot remain bound by outdated attendance models.

It is time to reform the attendance regime in India's legal education system. The BCI and UGC must recognize that learning in law schools today is multi-dimensional — it includes classrooms, internships, moots, fieldwork, and community engagement. The system should move towards a credit-based model, where internships, research, and civil society involvement are formally acknowledged as academic components rather than treated as distractions. Hybrid learning methods, such as online or recorded lectures, should be recognized, especially when students are involved in professional training or social initiatives. Law colleges should also establish attendance review committees to evaluate individual cases and ensure fairness in application.

Among all aspects, internships and field exposure deserve special weight. They bridge the gap between theory and practice, allowing students to witness the real functioning of the legal system — from courtrooms to client interactions and public awareness campaigns. Yet, under the current structure, students are often forced to choose between attending classes and gaining practical exposure. This forced trade-off limits professional growth and discourages initiative. Internships and experiential learning should therefore be integrated into the curriculum and credited as part of academic fulfillment.

The 75% attendance rule, though well-intentioned, has become outdated in its current form. It measures discipline but ignores dedication; it counts presence but not participation. The Delhi High Court's observations and Justice Gavai's reflections together remind us that education must prioritize understanding, engagement, and growth over mechanical compliance. Legal education must produce not only academically sound graduates but also individuals who are empathetic, confident, and socially conscious.

Ultimately, the worth of a law student should not be judged by how many times they signed an attendance register but by how deeply they understood justice, equality, and service to society. True education expands the mind and shapes the personality — it cannot and should not be confined within the boundaries of a 75% rule.

Author is Advocate at Rajasthan High Court.

Views Are Personal