Supreme Court Questions Delhi HC Ruling Against Debarring Law Students Over Low Attendance, Asks BCI Why It’s Not Challenged
The Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of a Delhi High Court ruling that effectively bars law‑college authorities from detaining students or barring them from examinations solely on grounds of low attendance, and has questioned why the Bar Council of India (BCI) has not formally challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court. The matter arose in a PIL by two final‑year law students relating to BCI’s 2024 circulars (background checks, declaration of dual degrees/employment, and attendance norms), and the Court flagged the Delhi HC order as creating “chaos” for National Law Universities (NLUs).
What the Delhi HC held
-
In November 2025, a Delhi High Court division bench held that no law student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India can be detained from taking examinations or prevented from pursuing their academic career merely on account of shortage of minimum attendance.
-
The court directed the BCI to re‑evaluate mandatory attendance norms for 3‑year and 5‑year LL.B. courses, aligning them with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and UGC regulations, and emphasised that attendance norms must not cause mental trauma or risk to students’ lives.
Why the Supreme Court is questioning the HC ruling
-
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta remarked that the Delhi HC’s approach may lead to students not attending classes, undermining the purpose of NLUs and their reputed faculty; the Court asked the BCI counsel, Adv. Radhika Gautam, why the BCI has not challenged the HC order.
-
The bench noted that the HC judgment has acquired “precedential value” not only for the case in which it was delivered but also for the broader system of NLUs and other law‑university setups, and observed that the low‑attendance issue is tied to biometric‑attendance controversies in the present PIL.
What this means for BCI and NLUs
-
The Court has indicated that even if the BCI does not file a formal appeal, it will still consider the correctness of the Delhi HC’s reasoning on attendance‑based debarment, signalling possible vertical intervention in the regulatory framework for legal education.
-
For NLUs and other law‑university systems, the immediate effect is that they cannot legally use attendance shortfalls as a ground to bar students from exams or block their academic progression, but the Supreme Court’s scrutiny raises the prospect of a future re‑calibration of attendance norms or a narrowing of the HC’s directions.
