New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Delhi High Court judgment from November 2025 which had held that law students cannot be detained from appearing in examinations or continuing academic progression solely on the ground of insufficient attendance.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while issuing notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India challenging the High Court’s directions on compulsory attendance for law students. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 21, 2026.
“Issue notice returnable on 21st July. In the meantime, effect and operation of paragraph 249 of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed. However, the same shall be effective prospectively,” the court ordered.
The Bench clarified that its stay order would not prevent High Courts from independently dealing with similar issues concerning attendance requirements in matters pending before them. “It will be open for High Courts where similar matters are pending on the issue of attendance; the High Courts will be at liberty to take appropriate decisions,” the court noted.
The High Court Judgment
The November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court had held that no student enrolled in a recognised law college or university could be detained from appearing in examinations or continuing academic progression solely due to a shortage of attendance. The directions were issued while disposing of a suo motu public interest litigation initiated after the 2017 suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla at Amity University, who was allegedly subjected to harassment by the institution and some faculty members for maintaining low attendance and was forced to repeat an entire academic year in the BA LLB course.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that national law universities had been adversely affected by the High Court’s decision. “All the NLUs are suffering. No student wants mandatory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,” the Bench observed.
The court also questioned the Bar Council of India about the delay in challenging the judgment. “Why did you come so late?” the Bench asked. BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra admitted that the delay was a lapse on their part.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for NMIMS College, submitted that the High Court judgment was giving a premium to students lacking discipline, stating that students were not attending colleges. The court responded that the High Court had gone too far in issuing such directions. “Does the judgment give a right to students not to go to colleges? The High Court has legislated literally,” the Bench said.
NMIMS had earlier argued before the court that the High Court ruling had triggered a floodgate of litigation by students seeking permission to sit for examinations despite attendance shortages, thereby undermining academic discipline and institutional autonomy.
A separate petition challenging biometric attendance in law colleges was also listed before the court on the same day. Petitioner Prakruthi Jain, appearing in the matter, submitted that there were no safeguards regarding how the biometric data would be protected and that all of it would be outsourced to private intermediaries. The court directed institutions to respond and listed that matter as well for July 21, noting that it had not yet decided the petition.
Case Details
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Hearing: May 26, 2026
- Next Date: July 21, 2026
- Petitioner: Bar Council of India
- BCI’s Advocate: Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, BCI Chairman
- NMIMS’s Advocate: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi with Advocate Kanu Agrawal
