Delhi High Court Shapes Fair University Attendance Policies

The Delhi High Court’s 2025 judgment in *In Re – Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla* addresses university disciplinary powers within constitutional fairness. The case arose after a law student committed suicide in 2016 following debarment from exams due to low attendance. The Court examined whether attendance enforcement met constitutional standards of reason and fairness. It emphasised that academic autonomy must respect students’ dignity and mental well-being under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Core Issue Before the Court

The Court clarified the dispute was not about attendance rules themselves but how they were applied. Universities often barred students automatically once attendance dipped below the threshold, without warning or counselling. This mechanical enforcement violated procedural fairness and constitutional principles. Universities, as public authorities, must act reasonably and justly when exercising disciplinary authority.

Constitutional Principles Applied

The judgment invoked Article 14’s doctrine against arbitrariness and procedural fairness. It linked fairness to Article 21’s protection of life and dignity, recognising mental health as part of constitutional rights. Universities must ensure decisions affecting students’ academic careers are proportionate and reasoned. Fairness is both a procedural and substantive constitutional value.

Attendance Rules and Enforcement

While the Court upheld attendance norms, it condemned rigid enforcement. The Bar Council of India’s Rule 12 requires 70% attendance, relaxable to 65% in exceptional cases. However, the Court called this framework extremely strict and urged alignment with the National Education Policy 2020 and University Grants Commission Regulations 2003. These policies promote flexibility and learner-centred education. Strict attendance rules, when enforced mechanically, risk unfair exclusion.

Mandatory Procedural Safeguards

Universities must now follow specific steps before denying exam eligibility due to attendance. These include weekly attendance updates, monthly shortage notices to students and guardians, counselling sessions, and chances to make up attendance through extra classes or recognised academic activities such as legal aid or internships. Medical or mental health hardships must be recorded. Students must receive notice and an opportunity to respond before final decisions.

Broader Implications for Higher Education

The judgment demands a cultural shift in university governance. Institutions must create supportive environments with counselling and grievance redressal committees including student participation. Debarment cannot be informal or automatic but must be reasoned and open to challenge. Experiential learning like moots, research, and internships should count towards attendance. The Bar Council of India must revisit Rule 12 to harmonise with NEP 2020. No law school may impose stricter attendance norms than those prescribed.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling marks a milestone in aligning educational governance with constitutional values. It balances institutional autonomy with student welfare. It ensures disciplinary actions respect procedural fairness and the right to dignity. The judgment encourages inclusive and flexible academic policies that prioritise student mental health and participation.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss the role of constitutional principles such as Article 14 and Article 21 in regulating disciplinary actions by public educational institutions in India.
2. Critically examine the impact of rigid attendance policies on student welfare and academic inclusion in higher education.
3. Explain the significance of learner-centred education as outlined in the National Education Policy 2020 and its implications for university governance.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the importance of procedural fairness and grievance redressal mechanisms in public institutions and their role in protecting individual rights.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss the role of constitutional principles such as Article 14 and Article 21 in regulating disciplinary actions by public educational institutions in India.

1. Article 14 ensures equality before law and prohibits arbitrary or discriminatory actions by public authorities.
2. Disciplinary actions by universities must be reasonable, proportionate, and non-arbitrary under Article 14.
3. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, including dignity and mental well-being of students.
4. Fairness in disciplinary processes is a constitutional mandate linked to Article 21’s right to dignity.
5. Universities, as public authorities, are constitutionally accountable for decisions impacting students’ academic and personal rights.
6. Procedural fairness (notice, hearing, representation) is essential to uphold Articles 14 and 21 in academic discipline.

2. Critically examine the impact of rigid attendance policies on student welfare and academic inclusion in higher education.

1. Rigid attendance rules can lead to automatic debarment without consideration of individual circumstances.
2. Such strict enforcement may harm students’ mental health, dignity, and academic progression.
3. Mechanical application excludes students facing genuine hardships (medical, personal, mental health issues).
4. It discourages flexible, learner-centred approaches and reduces opportunities for experiential learning.
5. Strict policies risk creating exclusionary barriers, undermining inclusive education goals.
6. Judicial scrutiny emphasizes proportionality and flexibility in attendance enforcement to protect student welfare.

3. Explain the significance of learner-centred education as outlined in the National Education Policy 2020 and its implications for university governance.

1. NEP 2020 promotes flexibility, holistic development, and student engagement over rigid procedural rules.
2. Focus shifts from rote attendance to meaningful participation including internships, research, and legal aid work.
3. Encourages universities to adopt supportive, inclusive, and adaptive academic frameworks.
4. Calls for learner autonomy, counselling, and remedial opportunities to address academic shortfalls.
5. Governance must balance academic standards with student welfare and mental health considerations.
6. Universities need to revise policies like attendance rules to align with NEP’s learner-centred ethos.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the importance of procedural fairness and grievance redressal mechanisms in public institutions and their role in protecting individual rights.

1. Procedural fairness requires notice, opportunity to respond, counselling, and reasoned decisions before penalties.
2. Grievance redressal committees with student representation ensure transparency and accountability.
3. Example – Delhi HC ruling mandates prior warnings, counselling, and representation before exam debarment.
4. These mechanisms prevent arbitrary actions and protect constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
5. They encourage trust, institutional fairness, and mental well-being among students.
6. Effective grievance redressal supports inclusive education and upholds rule of law in public institutions.