NLSIU Attendance Row: Karnataka High Court Declines Interim Relief To Students Facing Year-Loss, Suggests Them To Approach Bar Council

The Karnataka High Court today [June 30] heard a batch of writ petitions filed by students of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, challenging the university's decision to impose year-loss and compulsory re-admission penalties for attendance shortages.

Before the single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi, the petitioners argued that the university's enforcement of attendance regulations was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Justice Kinagi, while hearing the matter, orally observed that students who are aggrieved by the university's actions could approach the Bar Council of India.

“…Do you have to complete LLB or not? By making such allegations against college…. how are you going to pass without attendance?”, the court orally asked.

The petitioners, through their counsel, argued that the university's enforcement of attendance regulations is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was submitted that it has affected approximately 30 students.

“…It's not just 1 or 2 students milord. The University has arbitrarily treated the students. Even the repeat examinations were conducted on the same day when classes were being held”.

The counsel also told the court that many other similarly placed students, with attendance below 70 per cent were permitted to attend the exams, whereas the petitioners were not.

At this juncture, the Court also questioned the maintainability of the petitions.

"You want to file a suit for damages? The exams are over…”, the court enquired.

“…This is one of the best universities in the country. There is bar council regulation… if the university had been in compliance with their own Academic and Examination Regulations, the students need not have come here…let the students be provisionally promoted…Let them not lose an year….”, the counsel for the petitioner continued.

The court interjected and asked: “They can come to the High Court but they can't go to bar council with their grievance?”

The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that examinations for repeat courses are conducted on the same day when regular classes are held, forcing students to choose between attending classes and appearing for examinations. This, according to the petitioners, results in an arbitrary penalisation of students who attend such examinations and lose attendance on that behalf.

“…On March 9 and 10 of this academic year, there were 'repeat exams' as well as classes. Because of attending such exams, they are penalised. Let them be provisionally promoted. These are one of the best students. Look at their academic record milord…”, the counsel pleaded.

It was further argued that the university is not in compliance with the Bar Council of India's mandate requiring 60 hours of class per subject on several subjects, and that the university conducts only 51 hours. The petitioners contended that if the university had been in compliance with its own Academic and Examination Regulations, the students would not have been compelled to approach the Court.

The petitioners' counsel also informed the court that they will be filing a separate petition challenging the Academic and Examination Regulations, 2022 [AER].

The counsel appearing for NLSIU, Adv. Aditya Narayan, submitted that the university would respond to the petitioners' contentions and sought time to file a reply.

The petitioner's counsel meanwhile pressed for an interim relief in the form of provisional promotion of the aggrieved students. However, the court refused to entertain the request.

"They should attend classes without eligibility?”, the court orally questioned.

Accordingly, the Court granted time for NLSIU to file a reply and listed the matter for further hearing next month.

“The respondents seek time to file reply. Granted”, the court noted while listing the matter next month.

Background

For context, three NLSIU students filed separate writ petitions challenging the university's attendance shortage notices and the consequential denial of promotion to the next academic year, among other issues faced by them.

The petitions challenge various actions of the Academic Administration Department (AAD) and the Academic Review Committee (ARC) of NLSIU, which allegedly computed the students' attendance without including office hour components and imposed the year-loss consequence under Regulation 4.4 of the Academic and Examination Regulations (AER) 2022.

The first petitioner challenges the AAD attendance-shortage notices dated February 11, 2026, and May 25, 2026, and the ARC orders dated April 21, 2026, and May 30, 2026. The petitioner contends that his attendance should be computed by including the mandatory office-hours component and by crediting two simultaneous subject sessions missed on account of a Jurisprudence II repeat examination on November 6, 2025.

Similarly, the second petitioner challenges the determination of the Academic Administration Department debarring her from the Intellectual Property Law examination on the ground that her attendance is below 66%. She seeks a direction to the respondents to excuse a single office hour missed on account of illness and to exclude the four class hours lost to the university's II Trimester Repeat Examinations of March 9 to 12, 2026, which would make her attendance in Intellectual Property Law would be 66.07%, meeting the 66% threshold under Regulation 4.5.

She also seeks a direction to permit her to write the Intellectual Property Law repeat examination, treated as a first attempt, and to promote her to the III year of the programme.

On the other hand, the third petitioner challenges the AAD attendance-shortage notice dated September 16, 2025, and the consequent year-loss/compulsory re-admission under Regulation 4.4 of AER 2022. He seeks a direction to reckon his attendance in Criminal Law II as reflected on the DigiCampus portal and to declare him to have satisfied the 75% requirement.

Case Title: Dhawal Mittal v. National Law School Of India University & Other Connected Matters

Case No: WP 18046/2026 & Ors