Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Delhi HC Verdict On Law Students’ Attendance Norms, Seeks BCI Response

Instead, the Court sought a response from the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a petition filed by NMIMS challenging the ruling.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi clarified that it would not suspend the High Court’s order at this stage.

“We are not suspending that order. We will hear the matter, decide and lay down the correct position of law,” the bench observed.

The matter arises from a November 2025 Delhi High Court ruling which had held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university can be debarred from examinations or academic progression only on the ground of insufficient attendance. That judgment stemmed from proceedings connected to the suicide of a law student in a case that had triggered broader institutional scrutiny over attendance norms in legal education.

NMIMS, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued before the apex court that the High Court ruling had effectively diluted mandatory attendance requirements and created uncertainty in enforcement.

“It has rendered attendance meaningless. Students don’t want to come to college. Why go to college then?” Rohatgi submitted, adding that the decision had opened the floodgates for litigation by students seeking exemption from attendance rules.

The Court, however, noted the wider implications of the debate, observing that if interpreted broadly, the ruling could reduce law school hostels to “just boarding and lodging facilities”.

After hearing preliminary arguments, the bench issued notice to the Bar Council of India and tagged the matter along with a batch of petitions concerning BCI circulars on legal education standards, including attendance norms, disclosures and academic compliance requirements.

The petition filed by NMIMS through AoR Kanu Agrawal contends that the High Court judgment undermines the regulatory framework governing legal education under Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, which prescribes a minimum 70 per cent attendance requirement with limited relaxation in exceptional cases.

The university argued that classroom instruction remains central to legal training, particularly in integrated five-year law programmes where students enter directly after school. It stressed that co-curricular activities such as moot courts, internships and seminars, while important, cannot replace structured classroom teaching.

Rohatgi also pointed to international practices, submitting that jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong maintain enforceable attendance or participation norms in professional legal education.

On the regulatory side, the petition argued that Rule 12, framed under the Advocates Act, 1961, is valid delegated legislation and can only be struck down on limited constitutional grounds. It further cautioned that removing attendance thresholds would create inconsistency and make enforcement of academic discipline difficult across institutions.

The plea also highlighted what it described as a “floodgate effect” of litigation following the High Court ruling, with multiple students approaching courts to bypass attendance requirements. It argued that such an outcome undermines institutional autonomy and destabilises the structure of legal education.

At the same time, NMIMS contended that judicial directions cannot rewrite or dilute regulatory thresholds fixed by expert bodies like the BCI, and that courts should defer to such specialised regulators on academic standards.

The Supreme Court has now issued notice and will take up the matter along with connected cases.