High Court Suggests Delhi University To Evolve Mechanism For Law Students For Making Representation Regarding Short Attendance
The Delhi High Court dismissed Writ Petitions of law students seeking direction against the DU to allow them to appear in the individual semester examinations.
The Delhi High Court has suggested the Delhi University (DU) to evolve a mechanism in consultation with the Bar Council of India (BCI), in which the students within a time frame may make the representation regarding short attendance.
The Court was hearing a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the law students seeking direction against the DU and its authorities to issue admit cards and allow them to appear in the individual semester examinations.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed, “The Dean of the Law, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, in consultation with the Bar Council of India, may evolve a mechanism wherein the students within a time frame may make the representation regarding short attendance, and the authorities may take appropriate decision if such representations are found to be genuine.”
The Bench emphasised that there should be strict adherence to notifying the attendance position of each of the students for each month on the notice board of the College, and it must clearly indicate the lectures/practicals held subject-wise and the numbers attended by each student.
Advocate Pritish Sabharwal represented the Petitioners while Advocate Mohinder J.S. Rupal represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioners were enrolled as students in different semesters (I/III/V) at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, where they were pursuing their Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree. The Respondent published a list of detained students for the reason of shortage of attendance on January 4, 2025 wherein the names of the Petitioners were mentioned and therefore, they were not issued the admit cards for the concerned semester exams. Hence, they were before the High Court seeking directions for the issuance of admit cards and liberty to sit in the examination.
Court’s Observations
The High Court view of the submissions made by the Petitioners, noted, “The Division Bench of this Court has very lucidly explained the importance of attendance in a professional course i.e., an L.L.B course. The petitioners have sought relief by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, given their own lack of diligence in adhering to the prescribed academic discipline, allowing such a remedy would set a wrong precedent by effectively rewarding non-compliance.”
The Court remarked that it is essential to maintain the integrity of the LL.B. professional course and to ensure that students who abide by the rules are not prejudiced by a retroactive relaxation of discipline.
“Power under Article 226 is not a tool for granting relief in situations where there has been a manifest disregard of discipline by the students themselves. To permit such an invocation would not only undermine the integrity of the professional course but also prejudice those students who diligently observe their academic responsibilities”, it added.
The Court said that no relaxation can be granted in the writ jurisdiction in the aggregate attendance requirement, however, it reiterated that the Universities/Colleges must exercise discretion in a genuine case, particularly in medical ailments and other difficult circumstances, to take a decision in the best interest of the student.
“In the era of technological advancement and in order to avoid any further objection being taken in future by the students that they were not timely notified, the University of Delhi/Faculty of Law should send such monthly attendance updates via e-mail along with SMS and WhatsApp to the respective students and the record/proof of such should be maintained by the University of Delhi/Faculty of Law”, it suggested.
The Court also suggested that the DU and the BCI may evolve a mechanism to enable the students to attend classes online with the appropriate safeguards and conditions.
“The court is conscious of the fact that in professional courses, physical attendance carries distinct values, however, the continuous development of the technology and Artificial Intelligence presents an opportunity to the experts to evolve effective remote learning mechanisms”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- Rojalini Parida v. University of Delhi through its Vice-Chancellor & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:853)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Pritish Sabharwal, Ashu Bidhuri, Swapnam, Prakash Singh, Kamal Singh, Saket Verma, Yogesh Kumar Dubey, Shweta Singh, Sharad Pandey, Jai Gupta, Arunima Gupta, Hrishabh, Amit Kumar Diwakar, Deep Narayan, Raj Shekhar, Kumar Gaurav, Pramod Tripathi, and Nisar Malik.
Respondents: Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Preet Pal Singh, Tanupreet Kaur, and Akanksha Singh.
