Law Students Can't Be Barred From Exams Over Lack Of Minimum Attendance: Delhi High Court Issues Directions

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that no student enrolled in any recognized 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.“No law college university or institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms which are over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI,” a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held.The Court observed that attendance norms in education, particularly legal education, can't be made so stringent so that they lead to mental trauma of students, and their deaths by suicide. The bench closed a suo motu case concerning the suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi in 2016. His friend wrote a letter to then CJI alleging in August that year that Rohilla was subjected to harassment by the college and some faculty members for maintaining low attendance.As per the letter, Rohilla was forced to repeat an entire academic year. The Supreme Court had then taken cognizance of the letter petition by the friend, and had finally in its order of March 6, 2017 transferred the matter to the high court. While pronouncing the final verdict in the matter today, the Court said even if attendance is not the only factor which led to the unfortunate incident of loss of Rohilla, loss of a young life cannot come at the cost of mandatory attendance norms. Considering stark realities and hearing stakeholders on the issue, the Bench said that instead of barring students due to shortage of attendance, less stringent norms must be explored.“There are several other cases of suicide by students over the years which have been connected to mandatory attendance requirements. Mental health crisis arising from the pressure to meet such attendance requirements and other related issues. These have also been recently highlighted and dealt with by the Supreme Court in two decisions,” the Court said. It observed that University education begins for students at the prime time of their youth, where focus must be on academic excellence coupled with holistic growth, which includes physical activities such as sport, extra activities, dance music, drama, as also building interpersonal relationships, social skills and preparation for a life that awaits them beyond the gates of the university. “Legal Education does not merely require one sided teaching. It has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law and the implementation thereof. In order to obtain such holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required nor can be sufficient. Classroom education has to be coupled with practical training, knowledge of court systems, prison systems, Legal Aid, gaining practical experience in moot court, seminars, Parliament debates, attending court hearings, etc. These activities need to be weaved into the legal curriculum in a manner that ensures multi dimensional learning and training of law students, which would not be possible with strict mandatory attendance requirements. Thus sufficient flexibility in marking of attendance to promote participation in multifarious areas of learning in law school is essential to inculcate a growth mindset in budding law students,” the Court held. It said that the vision for education in India, both in the manner of teaching and learning, has drastically changed with the national education policy. The Court noted that the NEP 2020 envisages multi disciplinary study online classes, as also increasing virtual participation of students and teachers. “The crux of both the NEP and the extent UGC regulations is flexibility and not rigidity. It is common knowledge that, in today's day and age, the manner in which education is impacted through online classes, public domain video tutorials, encourages and enables a growing number of youth to conceptually understand through these modes of learning, such learning is, in fact, sometimes even better than classroom learning.”The Court observed that classroom learning is meant to encourage discourse and discussion between teachers and students as also to create a space where there can be dialogue and engagement on various subjects. “It is also been a consistent observation that students invariably attend lectures of teachers who make such lectures engaging and interesting. This ought not to be achieved by mandatory attendance norms, but by creating a space where feedback can be exchanged between teachers and students, lectures which are engrossing automatically attract students, proving that attendance ought to be achieved by voluntary participation, rather than by imposing rigid norms,” the Court said. “The harsh reality of practices such as proxy attendance in many institutions is well known. Detention due to non adherence to mandatory attendance does not take into consideration practical ...

Law Students Can't Be Barred From Exams Over Lack Of Minimum Attendance: Delhi High Court Issues Directions

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags