The Supreme Court’s decision to stay a key part of the Delhi High Court judgment allowing law students with low attendance to appear in examinations has sparked mixed reactions among students at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (DU).
While some students welcomed the move, saying classroom attendance had sharply declined after the Delhi High Court ruling last year, others argued that rigid attendance rules failed to account for internships, competitions and financial challenges faced by law students.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stayed the operation of paragraph 249 of the Delhi High Court judgment, which had stated that students should not be barred from examinations solely on the basis of attendance shortage.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed, “All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students.”
The Bench further remarked, “Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to colleges? The High Court has legislated literally.”
Among students supporting the stay, many said attendance in classrooms had dropped noticeably after the High Court verdict.
“After the judgment, several students stopped attending regular lectures because they believed attendance would no longer matter. In many classes, half the seats remained empty,” said a second year student of the Faculty of Law.
Another student said the Bar Council of India (BCI) should now reconsider how attendance rules are implemented in law colleges. “The solution cannot only be strict attendance. The BCI should frame practical rules that also recognise internships, moot court competitions and legal aid work as part of legal education,” the student said.
However, several students criticised the Supreme Court’s intervention and said attendance rules should be made more flexible rather than stricter.
“A lot of law students travel long distances, prepare for judicial services or work internships alongside studies. Detaining students over a few percentage points of attendance is unfair,” said a final year law student.
Another student said the High Court judgment had given relief to students facing genuine difficulties. “The stay is disappointing because many students were finally feeling protected from arbitrary detention policies. Attendance should matter, but it should not decide someone’s entire academic future,” the student added.
