“we hereby direct and provide that the students whose academic session was ongoing when the judgment dated 3rd November, 2025 was rendered by the Delhi High Court, shall not be detained or prevented from appearing in the final examinations for the said academic session”, the Court directed.

The Court clarified that this is a one-time measure in view of the confusion created by the Delhi High Court's direction that no law student could be barred from taking examinations solely on the ground of lack of minimum attendance and the Bar Council of India's subsequent circular implementing it.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that 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.

“we are of the considered view that as the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in November, 2025 diluted the attendance norms in the law colleges and as the directions contained in the said judgment were virtually accepted by the Bar Council of India, the students who acted under a bona fide belief that mere shortage of attendance would not be an impediment to their appearing in the examinations for the ongoing academic session are entitled to the benefit of doubt as a one time measure only”, the Court observed.

The Court directed that students whose academic session was in progress on November 3, 2025 shall not be detained or prevented from appearing in the final examinations for that academic session. It further held that if such students had missed the final examinations, either wholly or partly, they must be allowed to appear in the supplementary examinations for that session.

“The order dated 26th May, 2026 being prospective in its operation, the law students who are now facing an imminent consequence of loss of academic session on account of shortage of attendance shall not be prejudiced by the order passed by this Court and that they shall be permitted to appear in the final examination for the said academic session. In case the students have not been able to appear in the final examination either completely or partially, they shall be allowed to take the supplementary examination for this session only”, the Court held.

The Delhi High Court had issued the directions regarding attendance norms and directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider attendance norms in a suo motu case arising out of the suicide of a law student.

After the judgment, the Bar Council of India issued directions to law colleges and universities stating that students should not be detained from appearing in examinations or progressing to the next semester solely due to shortage of attendance while the attendance norms were under reconsideration.

This resulted in many law students ceasing to attend classes regularly, the Supreme Court noted. After the May 26, 2026 interim order prospectively staying the operation of the aforementioned direction in the High Court's judgment, several colleges proposed to bar students with attendance shortages from appearing in final or supplementary examinations.

This led to multiple applications before the Supreme Court and petitions before various High Courts. The students argued that they had developed a legitimate expectation, based on the Delhi High Court's judgment, that they would not be prevented from taking examinations due to attendance shortage.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed granting relief and argued that six High Courts had taken a view contrary to that of the Delhi High Court on attendance norms. He submitted that students could not take advantage of the Delhi High Court's judgment and must face the lawful consequences of attendance shortages.

Rejecting this contention for the limited purpose of the current academic session, the Supreme Court held that the prospective nature of its May 26 stay order meant that students should not suffer the loss of an academic year because they had relied on the prevailing legal position created by the Delhi High Court's judgment and the BCI's response.

The Court listed the matter for final disposal on August 25, 2026.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Civil) No. 31/2025

Case Title – Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council of India & Ors. and connected matters