New Delhi: Nine years after the tragic suicide of Delhi’s 20-year-old law student Sushant Rohilla, the Delhi High Court has delivered a far-reaching judgment transforming the regulatory landscape of higher education—particularly in law colleges—by addressing students’ mental health, grievance redressal mechanisms, and mandatory attendance norms.
In one of its most consequential directions, the court held: “No student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.”
Instead, attendance shortages will only result in grade reduction—a maximum of 5% marks (or 0.33 in CGPA) rather than detention or disqualification.
Rohilla, a third-year law student at Amity Law School, Noida, was found hanging at his Sarojini Nagar home on 10 August 2016, after being barred from appearing in his semester examinations due to inadequate attendance. His death triggered widespread outrage and drew national attention to the punitive and inflexible attendance rules followed by law schools across India.
The case, popularly termed the ‘Sushant Rohilla Intervention’, was initiated through his friend’s petition addressed to the Chief Justice of India on 20 August 2016. The Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Delhi High Court in March 2017. Over time, what began as a probe into one student’s suicide evolved into a broader judicial inquiry into systemic failures in higher education institutions.
From individual tragedy to systemic reform
In its detailed 122-page verdict, the Delhi High Court noted that the criminal case filed by Rohilla’s sister under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) had been closed by the Delhi Police crime branch in January 2018, and the closure report accepted by a magistrate in October 2024, which found “no material to indicate commission of offence”.
Subsequently, on 14 November 2024, the family of the deceased student and Amity Law School reached an out-of-court settlement, agreeing to close all pending proceedings.
But, the High Court—emphasising the public importance of the issues raised—continued to hear the matter as a public interest judicial intervention, focussing on student welfare, institutional accountability, and the human cost of academic rigidity.
‘Students in distress’
The judgment noted the alarming rise in student suicides across premier institutions such as NIT Jamshedpur, IIT Guwahati, and NLU Delhi, observing that universities “must possess the requisite infrastructure to deal with students in distress”. The court identified two principal areas requiring urgent reform—the constitution of effective Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) and the re-evaluation of inflexible attendance requirements that have often led to disproportionate academic penalties and mental trauma.
Citing the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023, the court made it mandatory for all educational institutions and universities to constitute GRCs to address student complaints in a timely and empathetic manner.
While acknowledging the UGC’s regulatory framework, the court found the current structure deficient—particularly in limiting student participation to “special invitee” status and called for greater student representation.
The court held that students “are best placed to understand the grievances of other co-students”, warning that faculty members might “aggravate the problem” where they are the cause of the grievance.
Accordingly, the court directed the UGC to amend the 2023 regulations to ensure at least 50 percent of GRC members are student nominees; students must serve as full-time, effective members, not mere invitees; gender diversity must be ensured in representation; and mental health professionals must be regularly consulted by each GRC.
‘Counsellors and psychologists’
Each university must retain panels of counselors and therapists, whose expertise should be accessible to GRCs “when demanded by the situation”.
Until such amendments take effect, the court ordered that every GRC must immediately appoint at least 2-3 student members.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) was also directed to incorporate counselling requirements into its legal education affiliation conditions under Rule 16 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, ensuring the presence of trained mental health professionals in law colleges.
Revisiting attendance
The court detailed how classroom learning is meant to “encourage discourse and discussion between teachers and students. It is also meant to create a space where there can be dialogue and engagement on various subjects. It has also been a consistent observation that students invariably attend lectures of teachers who make such lectures engaging and interesting.”
Turning to the issue of mandatory attendance, the Delhi High Court critically examined Rule 12 of the BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008, which requires 70% attendance (relaxable to 65%) for law students and found it “very strict”.
The BCI defended the rule as essential to cultivating “advocacy, analytical skills, and social interaction”. However, the court found the rule “extremely strict in nature and leaving little room for relaxation”.
The court observed that detaining students solely for attendance shortage had a “cascading effect” on their academic performance and mental health.
Aligning with NEP 2020
Emphasising the flexibility envisioned under the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, the court noted that the policy “makes no reference to mandatory attendance” and instead encourages credit-based evaluation through co-curricular engagement.
The court stressed that legal education involves three dimensions: “Knowledge of the law, practical application of the law, and implementation of the law”—all of which require more than classroom presence. Activities such as moot courts, internships, debates, and model parliaments must, therefore, count towards academic credit.
If a student’s attendance is low, institutions have been ordered to introduce ameliorative measures during the semester itself, including weekly attendance notifications through portals or notice boards; monthly notices to parents or guardians about shortages; extra physical or online classes for affected students; assignments or legal aid work to make up for attendance deficits.
In a significant privacy-related finding, the court stayed the BCI’s 24 September 2024 circular, which mandated biometric attendance systems and CCTV cameras in all law colleges.
The court found these measures “extremely invasive of the privacy and rights of students”, directing that the circular “shall not be given effect to”.
Internships, access, and equity
Reaffirming an earlier assurance made by the BCI in January 2020, the court directed the council and state Bar councils to ensure equitable access to internships, especially for students from economically weaker backgrounds, remote regions, or with disabilities.
Within three months, the BCI must publish a city-wise directory of senior advocates, law firms, and regulatory bodies offering internships, to be updated periodically on its website.
Concluding its judgment, the Delhi High Court underscored: “The NEP, 2020, which envisions holistic and multidisciplinary education, does not require students to attend the entire course in-person to achieve the said objective. It is striking that ‘attendance’ finds a mention only in the context of teachers, not students.”
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: SC issues pan-India guidelines to protect mental health of students in colleges & coaching centres
