The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment on pleas challenging the Delhi High Court's November 2025 ruling that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations or continuing their academic pursuits solely on account of shortage of attendance.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved the verdict in pleas filed by Bar Council of India (BCI) and Narsi Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the High Court judgment which also directed BCI to reconsider mandatory attendance requirements for three-year and five-year LL.B. courses.

High Court Ruling

The Delhi High Court passed the impugned judgment in a suo motu proceeding arising from the suicide of a student of Amity Law School, Delhi, in 2016.

The High Court held that attendance requirements in legal education could not be enforced so rigidly that they resulted in mental trauma or contributed to extreme consequences such as suicide.

It held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college, university or institution in India could be detained from taking an examination or prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance. It also held that institutions could not prescribe attendance norms above the minimum percentage fixed by the BCI.

The High Court observed that legal education cannot be reduced to classroom attendance, as students also require practical exposure through moot courts, seminars, Parliament debates, court hearings, legal aid clinics and other activities. It held that sufficient flexibility in attendance norms was necessary to enable students to participate in such activities and obtain "multi-dimensional learning and training".

The High Court also referred to the National Education Policy, 2020 and the UGC framework, observing that the approach to education had moved towards flexibility, multidisciplinary learning and greater use of online modes of education.

The High Court directed BCI to undertake a re-evaluation of mandatory attendance norms for three-year and five-year LL.B. courses after stakeholder consultations involving students, student bodies, parents and teachers. It directed the BCI to consider giving credit for activities such as moot courts, seminars, Parliament debates and attending court hearings.

Pending that exercise, the High Court prescribed an interim regime. Law colleges were directed to notify students of their attendance regularly, inform parents or guardians of shortages, conduct additional physical or online classes and use assignments and practical work in legal aid clinics to make up attendance shortages.

It further held that if a student remained below the prescribed attendance requirement at the end of a semester, the student could nevertheless take the examination. The institution could reduce the student's final grade by a maximum of 5% where marks were awarded, or by 0.33% where a CGPA system was followed. Shortage of attendance alone could not result in withholding promotion to the next semester.

Supreme Court Proceedings

While hearing petitions challenging BCI circulars concerning, among other things, attendance requirements, the Supreme Court on May 7 expressed disapproval of the Delhi High Court's approach.

Justice Vikram Nath asked the BCI's counsel whether the judgment had been challenged and observed that it had created "chaos" and become a serious concern for National Law Universities. BCI subsequently challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

On May 13, while hearing plea by NMIMS against the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court again expressed reservations. Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the effect of the judgment could be that National Law University hostels would become merely "boarding and lodging facilities".

The Supreme Court initially declined to stay the High Court judgment. However, on May 26, it stayed paragraph 249 of the High Court's judgment, which contained the directions prohibiting institutions from detaining law students for attendance shortage.

During the hearing, Justice Mehta observed that the Delhi High Court judgment could be treated by students as a "free pass" not to attend classes, while Justice Nath questioned what teachers were expected to do if students did not attend.

In July, the Supreme Court granted a one-time protection to students whose academic sessions were already underway when the Delhi High Court judgment was delivered. The Court held that students whose academic session was ongoing on November 3, 2025, when the Delhi High Court judgment was delivered, could not be detained from appearing in their final examinations for that academic session merely because of attendance shortage.

Students who had missed their final examinations, either wholly or partly, were also permitted to appear in supplementary examinations for that session.

The relief was being granted because the Delhi High Court judgment had diluted the attendance norms and its directions had been "virtually accepted" by the BCI, the Court said. It added that students had acted under a bona fide belief that shortage of attendance would not prevent them from taking their examinations.

The Court clarified that the relief was a one-time measure and did not reopen the stay imposed on the Delhi High Court's directions.

Judgment has now been reserved in the matter.