Copyright indiatimes
Nearly nine years after the tragic death of Amity Law School student Sushant Rohilla, who died by suicide after being barred from semester exams due to attendance shortage, the Delhi High Court has ruled that no law college or university in India can prevent students from appearing in exams for lack of attendance.Citing Rohilla’s case and the “stark realities that have come to the surface,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed that attendance rules should not be so rigid that they cause mental distress or push students toward extreme steps.The court stated it was “strongly of the view that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent” that they inflict mental trauma and death.In its ruling, the bench directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to re-evaluate mandatory attendance rules and initiate long-term mental health reforms in educational institutions. “Sushant Rohilla has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space,” the court said, while closing a suo motu petition that had been transferred from the Supreme Court.Rohilla, then a third-year student, was reportedly barred from taking his semester exams because of insufficient attendance. In his note, he mentioned feeling like a failure and expressed his unwillingness to live. Legal proceedings between his family and Amity Law School concluded last year through an out-of-court settlement.Live EventsIn a detailed 122-page judgment, the court issued several key directions to law institutes across India. It ruled that “no student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.”The bench further clarified that no institution is allowed to impose attendance norms stricter than those prescribed by the BCI.Additionally, the court instructed all BCI-approved law colleges to introduce measures such as weekly online attendance notifications, monthly updates to parents or guardians, and supplementary physical or online classes for students who fail to meet attendance requirements.“If at the end of a semester, a student still does not qualify the prescribed attendance norms, the college or university cannot bar the student from taking the examination,” the order said. Instead, attendance shortages can be penalised by reducing the student’s final grade.While acknowledging that attendance may not have been the sole factor behind Rohilla’s death, the bench said the loss of a young life over such regulations was unacceptable.“There are several other cases of suicide by students over the years which have been connected to mandatory attendance requirements, mental health crises arising from the pressure to meet such requirements, and other related issues,” the court observed.[With TOI inputs]Add as a Reliable and Trusted News Source Add Now! (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) Read More News onSushant RohillaDelhi High CourtAmity Law Schoolmental health reformslaw educationattendance rulesBar Council of Indiamandatory attendance policylegal education regulationssuicide prevention (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online....moreless (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)Read More News onSushant RohillaDelhi High CourtAmity Law Schoolmental health reformslaw educationattendance rulesBar Council of Indiamandatory attendance policylegal education regulationssuicide prevention(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online....moreless Prime ExclusivesInvestment IdeasStock Report PlusePaperWealth Edition123View all Stories
