The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 13, 2026) expressed serious reservations over a November 3, 2025, ruling of the Delhi High Court, which held that law students should not be barred from appearing in examinations solely on account of attendance shortages.

The court said that such a view risked turning law college hostels into “just boarding and lodging facilities”, with students no longer feeling compelled to regularly attend classes.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi said it would “lay down the correct law” while issuing a notice on a plea filed by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS) challenging the High Court judgment. The Bench, however, declined to stay the operation of the ruling.

“We are not suspending that order. We will hear the matter, decide and lay down the correct position of law,” the Bench observed.

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the university, contended that the Delhi High Court ruling had effectively diluted attendance requirements and was posing significant challenges for law colleges across the country.

“The High Court says no attendance is required anywhere. People don’t want to go to college. I am wondering why we went to college then,” Mr. Rohatgi said.

Concurring with the submission advanced by Mr. Rohatgi, the Bench observed that accepting such a position would reduce National Law University hostels to “just boarding and lodging facilities”.

The matter was accordingly tagged with a pending batch of petitions challenging Bar Council of India (BCI) circulars mandating criminal background disclosures, declarations regarding simultaneous academic programmes, and compliance with attendance requirements for law students. The Bench said that it would hear the pleas on May 26.

The Delhi High Court in November last year had directed the BCI to reconsider the compulsory attendance requirements prescribed for three-year and five-year law courses, holding that students should not be denied the opportunity to sit for examinations solely on the ground of low attendance. The direction was issued in proceedings arising from the alleged suicide of a student of Amity Law University in 2016 after he was reportedly barred from appearing in examinations due to a shortage of attendance.

“Mandatory attendance norms also tend to curb creative freedom by forcing students to be in a particular space that is sometimes without any value generation. There’s a need to have a relook, and modify the manner in which mandatory physical attendance is to be perceived, and how attendance is not to be adapted with the changing times,” a Division Bench headed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh had observed.

Placing reliance on the Division Bench ruling, a single judge of the Delhi High Court subsequently extended relief earlier this year to several University of Delhi law students who had either been barred from appearing in examinations or whose results were withheld on account of inadequate attendance.

In its petition, NMIMS contended that the Delhi High Court ruling had opened the “floodgates” for litigation by students seeking permission to appear for examinations despite falling short of mandatory attendance norms, thereby undermining academic discipline and institutional autonomy.

The plea contended that classroom teaching remains foundational to legal education, particularly in five-year integrated law programmes where students join college directly after school. It maintained that lectures, tutorials, moot court sessions and other forms of practical training cannot be fully replaced by internships, competitions or extracurricular engagements.

The petition also relied on Rule 12 of the BCI Rules on Legal Education, 2008, which mandates a minimum attendance threshold of 70% while permitting limited relaxation up to 65% in exceptional cases.

In an earlier hearing on May 7, the top court had flagged that the Delhi High Court ruling had created “chaos” and had become a matter of concern for National Law Universities.