New Delhi, 26 May (H.S.): The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court order that held that law students cannot be barred from appearing in examinations on the basis of low attendance. A bench headed by Justice Justice Vikram Nath passed the stay order.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the Delhi High Court judgment was having an impact on National Law Universities across the country. It noted that no student was willing to comply with mandatory attendance requirements and that even students who had already passed were supporting the students’ stand.

The Supreme Court also questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) on why it had not challenged the High Court order earlier. In response, BCI Chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra stated that it was an error on their part.

On November 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court had ruled that no law student should be prevented from appearing in examinations due to shortage of attendance. It had also directed the Bar Council of India to amend the compulsory attendance rules.

The High Court order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS).

The matter relates to the 2016 suicide of Amity University law student Sushant Rohilla, who was barred from appearing in an examination due to insufficient attendance. The High Court had been hearing the case concerning his death.

During the proceedings, counsel for Amity University had argued that the institution was not responsible for Rohilla’s suicide and that his parents had been informed about his attendance shortage.

The case had earlier reached the Supreme Court, which took suo motu cognizance of the matter and transferred it to the Delhi High Court on March 14, 2017. Rohilla was a third-year law student when he was not permitted to sit for the examination and died by suicide on August 10, 2016.

The Supreme Court had taken cognizance of the matter based on a letter from Rohilla’s friend, who had sought action against Amity University for allegedly abetting his suicide.

During earlier hearings, amicus curiae and senior advocate Dayan Krishnan informed the Court that similar cases of student suicides had been reported from various institutions. The Court had then directed the filing of a detailed note and asked Amity Law University to clarify its position on compensation for Rohilla’s family.

---------------

Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar