The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a major direction in the Delhi High Court ruling that barred law colleges from barring students with insufficient attendance from appearing in exams, stating that the ruling has created difficulties for legal education institutions across the country.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) challenging the November 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court.
“Issuance of replyable notice on July 21. In the meantime, the effect and operation of Section 249 of the impugned judgment will remain suspended. However, the same shall be effective with prospective effect,” the bench ordered.
During the hearing, the court said that the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling were felt by legal institutions, especially the National Law Universities (NLUs), where students are increasingly resisting compulsory attendance requirements.
“All NLUs are suffering. No student wants compulsory attendance. Even those who have passed out are supporting the students,” the bench noted.
The court also questioned BCI’s delay in approaching the Supreme Court against the ruling. “Why did you come so late?” Ben asked.
BCI Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra admitted the delay and termed it an error on the part of the regulatory body.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in a related case, argued that the Delhi High Court ruling had effectively rewarded indiscipline among students. They will not go to colleges,” Rohatgi said.
The bench, while interacting with the counsel, observed that the Supreme Court ruling appears to have gone beyond interpretation and entered the legislative realm. She asked, “Does the ruling give students the right not to enroll in universities? The Supreme Court has issued literal legislation.”
The Delhi High Court in November 2025 ruled that students enrolled in recognized statutory institutions cannot be detained for examinations or deprived of academic progress solely on the grounds of insufficient attendance.
The ruling arose out of proceedings linked to the alleged suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla in 2017 at Amity University. Allegations were raised that Rohilla was harassed over low attendance and forced to repeat the academic year for his LLB course, which contributed to his suicide.
The Supreme Court observed that attendance regulations should not be implemented with such strictness that it leads to mental disorder or serious consequences to the students. It also directed the BCI to review the requirement of compulsory attendance for three-year and five-year law courses in light of the National Education Policy 2020 and evolving educational frameworks.
The ruling sparked challenges from law schools and universities across the country, which claimed it undermined academic discipline and institutional independence.
On May 13, while hearing a plea by Narsee Monje Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), the Supreme Court had already expressed serious reservations about the judgement. At that point, the bench noted that if attendance was no longer important, the law school hostels would become “mere boarding and lodging facilities.”
The court also noted that institutions known for classroom teaching and faculty participation would lose their purpose if students were no longer required to attend classes.
NMIMS argued that the Supreme Court ruling had opened the “gates” to litigation by students seeking permission to take examinations despite failing to meet attendance requirements. The institution relied on Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education 2008, which stipulates a minimum attendance requirement of 70%, with a limited relaxation of up to 65% in exceptional circumstances. The Institute also emphasized that lectures, tutorials, moot courts, practical training and classroom interaction remain essential elements of legal education, especially in five-year integrated law programmes.
