SC's One-Time Protection From Detention For Low Attendance Applies To Law Students Of All Semesters, Not Just Final Year: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court judgment providing "one-time protection" to law students, who were prevented from appearing in their exams during the academic year of 2025-2026, will apply to students missing any of the semester-end exams and not be confined only to "final exams."A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash refused to accept...
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Supreme Court judgment providing "one-time protection" to law students, who were prevented from appearing in their exams during the academic year of 2025-2026, will apply to students missing any of the semester-end exams and not be confined only to "final exams."
A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Farhan Dubash refused to accept the contention raised by the Indian Law Society (ILS) College, Pune, which argued that the Supreme Court judgment restricts the one-time protection to students pursuing the final year or final semester of the three-year or five-year law course.
"We are unable to accept this construction. The expression 'final examination' must be read in the context of the preceding discussion and, in particular, the reference to examinations for the 'ongoing academic session.' Paragraph 8 itself repeatedly qualifies the examination by reference to 'the said academic session' and thereafter refers to a supplementary examination “'or this session only.' The order does not use the expressions 'final-year students', 'final semester', 'final year examination' or 'examination for completion of the law course.' To accept the construction advanced by the College would require us to introduce limitations which the Supreme Court has not incorporated in the operative direction," the judges said in the order.
The distinction is material in the context in which it is used, the expression 'final examination' describes the examination concluding the concerned academic session; it does not describe the terminal year or terminal semester of the student's entire law course, the judges noted.
"The controlling words are those which connect the examination to the particular academic session which was ongoing on 3rd November 2025. The Petitioners before us were required to appear for the semester-end examinations relating to the academic session 2025–26, whether such examinations constituted the second, fourth or sixth semester of the three-year law course or the second, fourth, sixth, eighth or tenth semester of the five-year law course. In each case, the relevant semester-end examination was the concluding examination for that academic session. A student studying in an earlier year who is prevented from appearing for the semester-end examination may equally lose the academic session and, consequently, be unable to progress to the succeeding academic year. If the Supreme Court intended to protect only students in the final year or final semester of the law course, it could readily have said so. Instead, it adopted as the criterion the academic session which was ongoing on November 3, 2025 and protected students facing the loss of that session. We are, therefore, unable to read into the order any year-wise or semester-wise restriction which the Supreme Court has not imposed," the judges held.
Notably, the Supreme Court's order of July 2026 was basically clarifying the 'confusion' created by the November 3, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court diluting attendance norms, wherein the High Court had held that no student enrolled in any recognised law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.
This order was stayed by the SC in May this year and then again by an order passed on July 21, 2026 it was clarified that those students, who were debarred from appearing in exams due to shortage of attendance during the 2025-2026 session, would be permitted to give their exams as a 'one time' protection. The apex court had opined that such students had acted under a bona fide belief that shortage of attendance would not prevent them from taking examinations because the Delhi High Court's directions had been virtually accepted by the Bar Council of India.
The clarification from the bench led by Justice Chagla comes while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by around 41 students whose attendance was between 46 per cent to 55 per cent and they were not being permitted to sit for their semester-end exams. The students contended that they are governed by the one time protection provided by the Supreme Court whereas the colleges argued that the said protection was only for final year students of the three and five year law courses.
In its 40-page judgment, the bench also refused to accept the submission that, before extending the one-time protection to the Petitioners, the Court is required to undertake an individual inquiry into the state of mind of each student.
"Apart from the practical difficulties that such an exercise would entail, it would have the effect of fragmenting the class of students identified by the Supreme Court by introducing an additional criterion which finds no place in paragraph 8 of its order. This Court cannot add to or subtract from the class of beneficiaries expressly identified by the Supreme Court," the bench said in the order.
The bench further clarified that this conclusion does not dispense with any academic or examination requirement other than the requirement of attendance. The protection granted by the order on July 21, 2026 extends only to students who were detained or prevented from appearing for their examinations solely on account of shortage of attendance.
"Thus, a student who was otherwise ineligible to appear for an examination, had not submitted the requisite examination form, had not paid the prescribed fees, was subject to disciplinary action or had failed to satisfy any independent academic requirement cannot claim immunity from such consequence merely by relying upon the order of July 21, 2026," the bench said.
Further the judges opined that the benefit of the said order must, extend to all other similarly situated students of the College who were prevented from appearing for the relevant semester-end examinations during the academic session 2025–26 solely on account of shortage of attendance, subject to the qualification recorded in respect of proceedings which had already been finally concluded prior to July 21, 2026.
"Any other interpretation would result in a situation where the benefit of a measure expressly intended by the Supreme Court to address the consequences of the prevailing uncertainty would accrue only to those students who had approached a Court of law. We do not consider that to be the intent of the order dated 21st July 2026. We also clarify that the protection granted by the order dated 21st July 2026, and consequently by this judgment, is confined to the academic session 2025–26 and operates strictly as a one-time measure," the judges made it clear.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the petitions.
Appearance:
Advocates Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Amrut Joshi, Mohammed Khan, Ashraf Kapoor, Sumas Patel, Amit Icham, Chaitanya Purankar, Asmi Desai, Parth Deshpande, Madhavi Ayyappan, Arushi Keniya, Aishwarya Tuwar, Kunal Shirgire, Prakash Yedage, Vikas Kolekar, Shailendra Kanetkar, Pranay Kothari instructed by One Legal and Talekar & Associates appeared for Petitioners.
Advocates Rui Rodrigues, Milind Deshmukh, Prasad Gajbhiye, Rajendra Anbhule and Rutuja Joshi represented various respondents.
Additional Government Pleader Onkar Chandurkar assisted by Assistant Government Pleaders VD Badgujar and Priyanka Chavan represented the State.
Senior Advocate Shiraz Rustomjee and Advocate Sharad Bansal were the Amicus Curiae.
Case Title: Aniruddha Gaurav Gursal vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 6027 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 371