Sushant Rohilla Suicide Case| No Law Student Be Detained From Giving Exam On Ground Of Lack Of Minimum Attendance: Delhi High Court Issues Directions
The Delhi High Court said that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent, so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone death of a student.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Amit Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed that no law student shall be detained from giving examination on ground of lack of minimum attendance.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of an unfortunate incident which had resulted in the loss of a young student of Amity Law School namely Sushant Rohilla on August 10, 2016.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ordered, “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. … No law college, University or institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules.”
The Bench was of the view that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent, so as to lead to mental trauma, let alone death of a student.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
Brief Facts
The deceased student was pursuing the five-year B.A. LL.B. degree in one of the private law colleges in Delhi, NCR region i.e., Amity Law School, which was then affiliated to the Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU). In respect of the said incident, a letter was addressed to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) by the friend of the deceased student, seeking help and assistance in respect of the same. He alleged that the deceased was subjected to mental torture and harassment by a particular teacher of the concerned law school. The deceased student was stated to be the convener of the Debating Society and an active participant in Moot Court activities. He was also stated to be mentoring junior students in the concerned law school for moot court and debating events, and he continued to do so even after suffering from a physical injury.
It was stated in the said letter, that as the deceased student could not maintain 75% attendance, prescribed by GGSIPU, he was forced to repeat an academic year by the concerned law school. It was alleged that due to continuous harassment from the faculty and the particular teacher, as also the administration, the deceased student committed suicide. The crux of the said letter was that the detention of the deceased student due to lack of attendance forced him to take this extreme step. The said letter to then CJI led to a suo motu PIL (Public Interest Litigation), which was later transferred to the High Court. Earlier in respect of the said incident, an FIR was registered and the Magistrate had concluded that there was no active or direct act of instigation on part of the accused persons, which led to the suicide of the student.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “A large number of educational institutions have come forward and have placed their stands repeatedly on record in respect of both the aspects i.e., the constitution of the GRCs and the attendance norms. Thus, it would be apposite for the Court to consider the said two issues, in light of the urgent necessity for the institutions of higher education to be able to address and remedy the varied concerns of students.”
Constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs)
The Court said that for the GRC to function effectively, the same ought to constitute of at least 50% as students who are full-time members and not special invitees, and since, the student members could be changed on an annual basis, most Universities and colleges in the country already have Student Councils, which may nominate members to the GRC.
“… the necessity of having trained therapists and counsellors on the GRC cannot be overstated. The GRC ought to have as members on their panel proper counsellors and therapists whose services can be requested, if the need so arises. Moreover, a certain number of counsellors and therapist ought to be available on the campus for the students to approach and address their issues. This would be in line with the settled position of law that mental health is a part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, it added.
Mandatory Attendance Norms for Law Courses
The Court noted that in the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 there is no mention of mandatory attendance and in fact, ‘attendance’ finds a mention only in the context of teachers whose performance is to be assessed on the basis of various factors including peer review, attendance, etc.
“It is striking that the NEP, 2020 which deals with and contemplates various issues that are key to development of a holistic and multidisciplinary learning environment, does not require students to attend the entire course in-person to achieve the said objective. Further, it is a consistent effort of the Government under the NEP, 2020 to highlight the necessity of incorporating technology-based learning methods to advance teaching and learning by permitting ‘blended models of learning”, it remarked.
The Court further said that facing the consequences of non-appearance in the examination and detention would be an extreme step for a student, especially when considered in the light of repeated student suicide and mental health issues.
“Clearly, there is an increased emphasis on mental well-being of the students, which is likely to be severely jeopardized by permitting detention in a particular semester and non-appearance in the examination. The same requires to be re-considered by BCI itself, in the light of these decisions of the Supreme Court”, it added.
The Court was of the opinion that barring the student from sitting in an examination cannot even be the last resort undertaken by the concerned institutions – considering the debilitating consequences for the student including mental health and career prospects.
“While this Court is conscious of the fact that mandatory attendance norms are required for maintaining discipline, however, all inflexible rules, especially in the study of law are contrary to the welfare and interest of students. … The BCI Rules recognize moot courts, seminars, practical training, etc. as an essential component of legal education. Despite recognizing the necessity of all such activities, not giving adequate flexibility and accommodation to these activities forming an integral part of legal education would run contrary to the purpose of the study of law”, it also observed.
The Court noted that legal education does not merely require rote-learning or one-sided teaching and it has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law as also implementation thereof.
Court’s Directions
With respect to GRCs, the Court issued the following directions –
(1) It would be mandatory for all educational institutions and Universities to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees in terms of the University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023.
(2) In view of the fact that GRCs are primarily for safeguarding interest of students including their mental health, the UGC would initiate consultations and consider amending the UGC Regulations, 2023.
(3) The UGC Regulations, 2023 shall also provide that the Counsellors and therapists would be consulted by the GRC on a regular basis.
(4) While the amendment of UGC Regulations, 2023 is pending, on all GRCs at least 2-3 student nominees shall be appointed as members.
(5) BCI, in exercise of its power to inspect, recognize and accredit centres for legal education under Rule 14 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008 shall amend the conditions of affiliation under Rule 16 to include the appointment of adequate number of Counsellors/Psychologists in the GRCs of the respective centres for legal education.
With respect to the mandatory attendance norms, the Court issued the following directions –
(1) The Bar Council of India (BCI) shall undertake a re-evaluation of the mandatory attendance norms for the 3-year and 5-year LLB courses in India in line with the above observations as also in line with the NEP, 2020 and also the 2003 UGC Regulations which contemplate flexibility in attendance requirements.
(2) a. 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; b. No law college, University or institution shall be permitted to mandate attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules;
(3) The BCI shall also take steps to enable internships to be made available to all students, especially those students belonging to economically weaker background, remote areas, specially-abled students etc. who do not have resources to arrange the same.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the intervening parties, including the family of the deceased student have exhibited enormous resilience and deserve to be commended for continuing to pursue the cause, despite the enormous tragedy which struck them with the demise of the student - Sushant Rohilla who has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Courts On Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide Committed By Sushant Rohilla, Law Student Of I.P. University (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9600-DB)
