The Delhi High Court on 15th January passed a judgment requiring DU to release examination results for law students who have been detained due to a shortage of attendance, which reaffirms the decision in ‘Sushant Rohilla v. Bar Council of India’.

On 15th January, the Delhi High Court passed a judgment holding that Delhi University (DU) cannot withhold law results for lack of attendance, after a batch of writ petitions filed by final-year and senior-semester LL.B. students. 

The case was between the students from Campus Law Centre (CLC) and other law centres of DU and the University of Delhi. The students who were unable to fulfil the attendance criteria were allowed to sit for their end-of-semester either provisionally or after interim relief, but had their results withheld. Effectively, this forced the students to reappear for their examination. Furthermore, according to ‘Bar and Bench’, the detainee list was released 3 days before the examination, where no monthly or aggregate attendance records were published. 

The petitioners had argued that lack of attendance cannot be the reason to withhold results, citing the ‘Sushant Rohilla v. Bar Council of India.’ The petitioners further argued that the attendance data has been applied mechanically, which didn’t account for internships, competition or the abrupt last-minute cancellation of classes. 

The defendants, on the other hand, argued that Rules 10 and 12 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules of Legal Education, 2008 mandate a minimum attendance requirement, and students who fail to meet it cannot be allowed to take exams or have their results declared. Furthermore, the DU had held an internal inquiry on 22nd September, 2025, which recommended that the results of provisionally permitted students should not be declared, which has not been challenged by the petition. Lastly cited ‘University of Delhi & Ors vs Adarsh Raj Singh & Anr’ case, those who did not challenge their detention list or approach the court in time should not be entertained in court. 

The court examined the claims made by both parties. Firstly, the court looked into whether mandatory physical attendance is a “non-negotiable component of the teaching and training of students of law.” The court answered that in the negative. Then, looking at the ‘Sushant Rohilla v. Bar Council of India’ case, it is clearly stated that, “No student enrolled in any recognised law college, University or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance”

Further, the court observed that DU sought to justify its action by relying on Rules 10 and 12 of the BCI Rules; the legal position had been substantially clarified in ‘Sushant Rohilla v. Bar Council of India’. The court also rejected the University’s reliance on internal inquiry reports and undertakings obtained from students, by pointing out that undertakings could not override the law declared by a constitutional court. The court pointed out that the basis of detention was a shortage of attendance, which was held to be invalid; all consequential actions, including cancellation or non-declaration of results, could not survive.

The judgment affirms student rights within law education and takes a stand against the rigid enforcement of attendance norms, which does not take the ground reality into account.

Read More: DU Hikes Institutional Fees Again, Colleges Flag Impact on Students

Photo credits: Website of Delhi High Court

Reva Rawat

[email protected]