ON NOVEMBER 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University. This case originated from a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court in 2016 after a young law student, Sushant Rohilla, tragically took his own life. His death was reportedly linked to the fact that he had been barred from sitting for his semester examinations due to a shortage of attendance.
The Delhi High Court, while acknowledging the gravity of this incident, took the opportunity to reflect upon the structural and institutional issues within universities that often contribute to student distress. The Court issued important directions to the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’), observing that rigid and mechanical attendance rules must not obstruct a student’s academic or professional progress. It held that:
“No student enrolled in any recognized law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.”
The Court further directed that no law college or university shall prescribe attendance norms exceeding those mandated by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules. Importantly, it emphasized that academic participation should not be limited to classroom presence alone. Activities such as moot courts, debates, internships, social activism, and field research are integral to a law student’s learning experience and must be duly recognized as part of attendance requirements.
