The Sushant Rohilla Case: Delhi High Court on Attendance Rules and Student Rights

Hey learners,

In the summer of 2016, a bright young law student at Amity Law School, Delhi (then affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi-NCR), found himself trapped. He had been actively engaged in debating, mooting, and mentoring juniors, even after suffering a physical injury. Yet despite his efforts, he was debarred from sitting for his semester examinations because he lacked the 75% attendance required under the university rules. He repeatedly sought mercy, citing his extracurricular work and injury, but the institutional wheels did not relent. On 10 August 2016, he took his life at his residence in Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. The student was Sushant Rohilla. His death sparked protests by his family and peers outside the college. Over the years the matter grew into a public-interest legal challenge; in November 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark judgment, declaring that no law student may be barred from exams purely on the ground of low attendance.

{tocify} $title={Table of Contents}

Facts of the Case

Sushant Rohilla was a student of the five-year B.A. LL.B. programme at Amity Law School, affiliated to GGSIPU.
The university/institute attendance rule required at least 75% attendance to be eligible to sit for semester examinations.
According to the college’s interim probe report, Rohilla’s classroom attendance was about 29 %, and even with additional credit/participation, the figure was 43%.
His family claims he repeatedly undertook extracurricular work (debating, moot court, mentoring juniors) and had even done so after suffering an injury; they allege he was harassed/mentally pressured by faculty and administration.
Rohilla was debarred from taking his semester exams (6th semester) in May 2016 due to shortage of attendance.
On 10 August 2016, his body was found at his residence in Sarojini Nagar, Delhi. The police registered a case under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) at first.
In January 2018, the Delhi Police filed a cancellation report and gave a “clean chit” to the college authorities, concluding that no direct instigation by the institution was proven.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court took up a suo motu PIL after the death, which was later transferred to the Delhi High Court.
On 3 November 2025, the Delhi High Court held that students in recognised law institutions cannot be detained from exams for lack of attendance and that no institution may set attendance norms above the minimum prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

Legal Issue

The central questions before the Court were:

Whether the institutional decision to detain a law student and prevent him from taking examinations, only on the ground of short attendance, is constitutionally and legally valid in the context of legal education.
Whether the attendance rule (75%) and its rigid enforcement without sufficient safeguards for students facing injuries, extracurricular commitments, or alleged harassment, violates student rights or constitutes institutional neglect.
Whether the alleged harassment/mental torture by faculty/administration, in conjunction with detention for short attendance, can give rise to liability (including abetment to suicide) of the institution or its agents.

Arguments

On behalf of the student/family/friends (Complaint side):

The student was actively engaged in co-curricular activities (debates, moots, mentoring) even while injured and thus had been contributing significantly to the institution.
The college/university applied the 75% attendance rule inflexibly. His absence due to injury/extracurricular activities was not sufficiently accounted for. The family alleged mental harassment and lack of support.
The student was debarred from exams for attendance shortage, which they allege triggered deep distress and ultimately suicide.

On behalf of the institution/university/college (Defence side):

The attendance requirement was laid down by the university/affiliating body and per the BCI norms; the college followed prescribed rules.
Investigation by police found that the student had only approximately 43 % attendance despite extracurricular claims; relief or mitigation was limited.
There was no proven direct instruction or act by faculty/administration that amounts to instigation of suicide; thus criminal liability under Section 306 IPC was not established.

Judgment

The Delhi High Court, hearing the matter (suo motu) and after considering the case history, ruled that:

No student enrolled in any recognized law college/university in India shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from further academic progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.
No law college/university/institution may mandate attendance norms above the minimum percentage prescribed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
Attendance norms for legal education (and education in general) cannot be so stringent that they lead to mental trauma or death of a student.

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)

Educational institutions must balance regulatory/disciplinary norms (such as attendance) with student welfare, safeguards, transparency, and fairness.
The imposition of a rigid rule that effectively bars a student from examinations and thereby from academic progression, without appropriate accommodations or support, may render the institution’s policy or enforcement arbitrary, especially in professional courses like law.
While attendance is important for academic discipline and professional training, it cannot become a barrier to the student’s future prospects or push a student into despair, especially when other factors (injury, mentoring roles, extracurricular commitments) are present.
Regulatory bodies (such as the BCI) must ensure that professional education norms do not override student rights and well-being.

Significance and Institutional Lessons

The case sends a strong message across legal education in India: Students must not be barred from examinations solely because of insufficient attendance—institutions must provide remedial pathways and cannot mechanically enforce punitive detention.
It highlights the critical need for robust internal grievance redressal and counseling support in law colleges/universities, especially given the high-pressure nature of the programme.
It prompts regulatory review: The Bar Council of India and affiliating universities must reconsider minimum attendance norms, the flexibility of such norms in exceptional cases, and institutional accountability when rules have life-impacting consequences.
It underscores student welfare: Institutions should monitor attendance actively, notify students and guardians when attendance falls short, arrange compensatory classes, and allow reasonable accommodations (medical injury, extracurricular activities) instead of defaulting to detention.
From a policy perspective, the ruling may drive reform of affiliated private law colleges that impose stringent attendance rules, thus improving fairness and reducing undue academic stress.

Concluding Reflection

The tragic death of Sushant Rohilla at Amity Law School is a solemn reminder of how institutional rules—when applied rigidly and without compassion—can have far-reaching consequences. The Delhi High Court’s decision marks a watershed moment for legal education in India, asserting that attendance rules must not become a barrier to a student’s future. Educational institutions, especially in professional courses like law, must remember that behind every statistic is a human life, aspirations, struggles, and mental well-being. Attendance norms, therefore, must be tempered with flexibility, welfare orientation, and institutional accountability.