Rehan Khan
The Delhi High Court on 27th August highlighted the urgent need to reconsider the mandatory attendance requirements imposed on postgraduate and undergraduate students. A Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that the strict enforcement of attendance policies is perceived differently by students today, with significant implications for their mental health.
In response, the Court expressed its intention to form a committee that would study the various factors associated with this issue, aiming to establish uniform practices for attendance requirements across all higher education institutions. The Bench emphasized that this matter warrants attention on a broader scale rather than being limited to specific courses, colleges, or universities. The Court noted, “This issue deserves to be addressed at a much higher level rather than restricting it to any specific course/college/university/institution. Regulatory bodies as also some universities have in their statutes/ordinances, historically, prescribed mandatory attendance requirements. In the opinion of this Court, the same may require reconsideration, especially bearing in mind the teaching methods which have substantially changed including post the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The Court further remarked on the evolving nature of education, pointing out that “In recent times, it is not unusual for colleges and universities to hold classes virtually, to hold examinations virtually or via online platforms.” Given these changes, the Bench stressed the importance of encouraging attendance in a positive manner rather than penalizing students for shortages by barring them from exams.
To assess the necessity of mandatory attendance, the Court suggested that “Global practices followed by leading educational institutions around the world would also need to be analyzed to see whether mandatory attendance requirements are even required.” It highlighted the importance of consulting both teachers and students to determine appropriate standards for attendance and called for broader consultations to revisit the need for such mandatory requirements.
As part of its proceedings, the Court issued notices to the Central government, the National Medical Commission, the Department of Education, and other relevant stakeholders, directing them to submit their views on the issue. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 9.
These observations and directions were made in the context of a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated following the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student at Amit University. It was alleged that Rohilla was subjected to harassment by the institution and certain faculty members due to his low attendance. He was compelled to repeat an entire academic year in his BA LLB course, a situation that reportedly led to his suicide.