Noting that all national law universities were “suffering", the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Delhi High Court order that restrained law colleges, schools and universities from debarring law students from appearing in examinations for failing to meet the minimum attendance requirement.
Making it clear that its order shall be effective prospectively, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta posted the matter for July 21.
The order came on a petition, including the one filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) — which regulates legal education in the country — challenging the Delhi High Court’s November 2025 verdict.
The pendency of these petitions before the top court would not preclude high courts dealing with petitions on attendance from proceeding to decide the same, the Bench said.
Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, mandated a minimum of 70 per cent attendance, while already permitting limited condonation up to 65 per cent in exceptional cases.
The Bench asked BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra why the apex bar body took almost six months to challenge the high court’s judgment.
“All the NLUs (National Law University) are suffering… What would teachers at NLUs and other universities do if students do not attend classes?” it wondered if students did not want mandatory attendance.
On behalf of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the high court’s verdict should be stayed as it put a premium on skipping classes.
“Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to classes?" the bench asked and issued notice on the BCI’s plea and tagged it with other pending petitions on the issue.
Noting that the Delhi High Court’s judgment will be considered as a free pass by the students to avoid attending classes, the Bench said, “The judgment doesn’t preclude students from going to the classes, why have they taken admission?"
The high court’s verdict had come on a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court and later transferred to it in relation to the death of Sushant Rohilla — a third-year law student — by suicide in 2016 after allegedly being barred from appearing in semester exams due to lack of requisite attendance.
The high court had ordered all educational institutions and universities to constitute grievance redressal committees (GRCs) in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2023.
“The BCI shall undertake a re-evaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the three-year and five-year LL.B. courses in India…,” it had said.
The high court had said the BCI should incorporate the modification of attendance norms to enable giving credit to moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates and attending court hearings.
However, the petitioners contended that the Delhi High Court’s judgment triggered a “floodgate” of litigation by students seeking permission to sit for examinations despite attendance shortages, undermining academic discipline and institutional autonomy.
Maintaining that classroom teaching remained foundational to legal education, particularly in five-year integrated law programmes where students join college directly after school, the petitioner sought to emphasise that lectures, tutorials, moot court exercises and practical training could not be substituted entirely by internships, competitions or other co-curricular activities.
