Supreme Court Questions Delhi HC Ruling Against Debarring Law Students Over Low Attendance, Asks BCI Why It's Not Challenged

The Supreme Court today expressed disapproval of a Delhi High Court judgment which, while dealing with some law students' case, held that the shortage of attendance shall not act as a bar on their continuing academic pursuits.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a PIL filed by two final year law students from NALSAR University, who assailed circulars issued by the Bar Council of India in September 2024 mandating criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.

During the hearing, Justice Nath asked BCI counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, whether the Delhi High Court judgment observing that students cannot be barred on the basis of low attendance has been challenged. The judge remarked that the judgment has created "chaos" and become a serious concern for the National Law Universities.

"Students are not going to the classes...NLUs are known for their good faculty...if the students do not attend, what's the point?", Justice Nath said.

The bench asked the BCI counsel to peruse the judgment and expressed that it would be open to consider it. It was highlighted that the low attendance issue is connected to the biometric attendance issue in the present case as well.

As the BCI counsel sought time to come back with instructions, the matter was re-listed next week. Apparently, the bench also expressed that even if BCI does not challenge the order, it will consider the correctness thereof.

For context, in November, 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking an examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.

The High Court was dealing with the suo motu case arising out of a law student's suicide in 2016, in relation to which, the deceased's friend had written a letter to the then CJI alleging harassment by the college and some faculty members over low attendance.

The High Court Court observed that attendance norms in education, particularly legal education, cannot be made so stringent so that they lead to mental trauma of students, and their deaths by suicide. It further held that the Bar Council of India shall undertake a reevaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three year and five year LLB courses in India, in line with the above observations, as also in line with NEP 2020, and 2003 UGC regulations, which contemplate flexibility as part of this process.

As this decision was not stayed or modified, in January this year, a Single Bench of the High Court passed a similar order. It allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by various law students of the University of Delhi, holding that shortage of attendance cannot be a valid ground to detain them from appearing in examinations or preventing them from continuing their academic pursuits.

In this case, petitioner were some LL.B. students who had been barred by the varsity from appearing in end-semester examinations or whose results had been withheld, due to failure to meet the mandatory 70% attendance requirement.

Relying on the division bench's decision of November, 2025, the Single Bench allowed the writ petitions observing that the Division Bench judgment operated as a binding precedent.

Case Title: PRAKRUTHI JAIN v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)