Attendance shortage can’t bar students from exams

In a significant relief to law students of Delhi University (DU), the Delhi High Court has held that shortage of attendance cannot be used as a ground to detain students from appearing in examinations or to stall their academic progression. The ruling brings immediate relief to several LLB students whose examination prospects and results were affected due to attendance-related restrictions imposed by the university.

A Bench presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed a batch of petitions filed by DU law students and set aside the university’s decision to detain them solely on the basis of attendance deficiency. The court observed that denying students the opportunity to sit in examinations on this ground alone has no legal basis and cannot be sustained.

Reiterating its earlier landmark ruling in the Sushant Rohilla’s case, the High Court emphasised that attendance shortage, by itself, does not justify depriving a student of the right to take examinations or continue their academic course. The court clarified that once attendance is no longer considered a valid ground for detention, students are automatically entitled to all related academic benefits, including the declaration of results, promotion to the next semester and continuation of their law degree, subject to applicable regulations.

The court also addressed cases where students had already written examinations, but their results were withheld due to attendance issues. It directed that such results, if kept in sealed covers or otherwise withheld, must be declared expeditiously, ensuring that students are not left in prolonged academic uncertainty.

Students welcomed the judgment, calling it a major relief after months of anxiety. A final-year law student said the order had eased fears of losing an entire academic year despite having appeared in examinations. “Many of us were under tremendous mental stress, not knowing whether our results would ever be declared,” the student said.

Another student said attendance rules should encourage learning rather than operate as a punitive mechanism, adding that the court had finally acknowledged the impact such actions have on students careers.

The petitioners had challenged the university’s action as arbitrary and lacking due process. They pointed out that detention lists were often published just days before examinations, leaving students with no meaningful opportunity to seek clarification or corrective action. They also alleged that colleges failed to provide timely and transparent attendance records and no proper hearing or enquiry was conducted before debarring students from exams.

Delhi University, on the other hand, defended its position by citing mandatory attendance norms and undertakings given by students to comply with them. The High Court, however, made it clear that internal rules or undertakings cannot override binding judicial precedent or be enforced in a manner that irreversibly harms students’ academic future.

The issue of attendance norms in law colleges has remained contentious for years, particularly after the 2016 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla, which prompted judicial scrutiny of rigid attendance requirements. In the aftermath of that incident, the Delhi High Court had held that no law student should be barred from examinations solely due to attendance shortage, stressing the need for a more humane and balanced approach.