Delhi High Court
Courts On Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide ... vs ....... on 16 December, 2024
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh, Amit Sharma
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th December, 2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & CRL.M.A. 16639/2017, CRL.M.A.
8850/2024
COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN
RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT
ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior
Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr.
Sukrit Seth, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and
Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Advs. (M:
9871167778).
versus
....... .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Mr. Raajan
Chawla, Mr. Gautam Chauhan and Mr.
Shyam Singh, Advocates for R-
1/Amity Law School (M-
9899649343).
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Mr.
Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Varun Pratap
Singh, Mr. Maulik Khurana & Mr.
Ranjeev Khatana, Advs. for Union of
India (M: 9871221149).
Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (criminal) for
Delhi Police with Mr. Amit Peswani,
Advocate. Ms. Bharathi Raju, Senior
Panel Counsel for UOI (M-
9868895906).
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for NSUT, DTU, IGDTUW
with Mr. N.K.Singh, Ms. Laavanya
Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 1 of 9
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:19.12.2024
16:50
Mohnish Sehrawat and Mr. A.
Chadha, Advocates.
Mr. Piyush Sharma and Mr. Anuj
Kumar Sharma, Advocates for IARI
(M: 9999177068).
Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Advocate for
Lal Bahadur Shashtri University. (M:
9810092597).
Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing
Counsel for NLUD with Ms. Harshita
Rai and Ms. Vasudha Saini, Advocates
(M- 7309891469).
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr.
Aabhaas Sukhramani, Advocates for
NMC and DCI (M: 8130033159).
Mr. Ankit Jain and Ms. Divyanshu
Rathi, Advocates for ILI (M-
8396996188).
Mr. Harsh Kaushik and Mr. Arpit
Srivastava, Advocates for R-2 (M-
9811132899). Mr. Keshav Datta, Mr.
Rupal Luthra Advocates for Intervenor
(M- 9871919591).
Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Ms. Priti
Kumari, Mr. Mrinal Kishor,
Advocates for R-27 (M- 7503397704).
Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta and Mr.
Sanyam Gupta, Mr Aditya Goel,
Advocates for R- 33/TERI SAS (M-
9810298766).
Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, Ms. Devika
Thakur and Mr. Ranvijay Singh,
Advocates for R-12 and 22/IIFT and
JNU (M- 9811287117).
Mr. Joby P. Varghese, Advocate for R-
29 (M- 9899855689).
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 2 of 9
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:19.12.2024
16:50
Kaur, Ms. Akansha Singh, Mr.
Madhukar Pandey & Mr. Yash Saini,
Advocates for BCI (M:8800848307).
Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh,
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Mr. Sudipta Singha
Roy, Advs. for AIIMS (M:
9818385222).
Mr. Neeraj Verma, Adv. for R-24.
Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, Mr. Lakshay
Saini, Advs. for R-32 South Asian
University (M: 9999705006).
Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for IITD (M:
9810412737).
Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra,
Advs. for R-34 (M: 8377943421).
Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel, Mr. K. K. Mishra, ASC for
JMI University (M:9871878690).
Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya
Malhotra, Advs., Mr. Takrim, Legal
Officer for R-20. Mr. Siddharth Panda
and Mr. Anil Pandey Advocates for R-
19 (ILBS) (M: 9891488088).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition began due to an extremely unfortunate incident which resulted in the loss of a young life. A letter dated 20th August, 2016 was sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India by one Raghav Sharma, wherein he sought help and assistance for the sister of Sh. Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi, who had unfortunately committed suicide. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 3 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 said letter was based on an allegation that the deceased had been subjected to harassment by the institution and some faculty members, for maintaining low attendance. He was forced to repeat an entire academic year in the B.A.LL.B. course. He passed away on 10th August, 2016 and had also made allegations against some of the faculty members of the institution. The case in so far as the student and his family is concerned has now been resolved with the law school as recorded in the previous order dated 14th November, 2024.
3. On the previous hearings i.e., 14th November, 2024 and 6th November, 2024, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to file a report with respect to attendance regulations. On behalf of the Bar Council of India ('BCI'), Mr. Preet Pal Singh, ld. Counsel has handed over to the Court an extract of the report dated 14th December, 2024, which is stated to have been submitted by the sub-committee of Bar Council of India considering the issues which have been raised in the present petition including the issues raised vide order dated 9th September, 2024. The said extract of the report has been perused by the Court.
4. Submissions have been heard on behalf of the BCI and the ld. Amicus Curiae. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, ld. Counsel, submits that almost 20 years back the mandatory attendance requirements prescribed by the BCI was 66 per cent however, the same was changed to 70 per cent by amending the rules.
5. On being queried as what was the basis for fixing either 66 per cent or 70 per cent, ld. Counsel submits that he would need to seek instructions and refer to the documentation of that time and place the same before the Court.
6. Let the BCI place the said relevant documents relating to the increase of attendance requirements from 66 per cent to 70 per cent, in order to enable the Court to understand the background of the prescription for 70 per cent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 4 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 attendance.
7. In addition, the various queries which have been answered in the extract of the report handed over today would show that the BCI claims that mandatory attendance requirements are prevalent in several countries of the world and some material in this respect has already been placed on record. Let any further material in respect of internationally prescribed attendance norms relied upon by the BCI be placed on record. Further, the BCI in its report has also taken into account the requirement of mental health support systems within institutions and the constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees for promoting a compassionate academic environment.
8. In paragraph 11 of the said report, the BCI has clearly stated that mandatory attendance requirements can exist with voluntary encouragement. In effect the BCI suggests maintenance of baseline attendance requirements to be complimented with other opportunities for alternative learning paths for students. The said extract from the said report is set out below:
"Whether voluntary attending of classes ought to be encouraged, in order to enhance responsibility amongst the students rather than forcing the same through penalties etc. Encouraging voluntary attendance in classes develops a sense of responsibility among students and cultivates a culture of active participation, which is vital for holistic learning. This approach shifts the focus from enforcing attendance through penalties to creating an environment where students choose to attend classes because they find value and engagement in the learning experience.
Voluntary attendance encourages students to take ownership of their education, an essential step in developing self discipline and accountability. By choosing to attend classes regularly, students Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 5 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 internalize the importance of participation and engagement, rather than seeing it as a compulsory obligation. This intrinsic motivation lays the foundation for lifelong learning and professional habits, such as punctuality and dedication, which are essential in any career.
Mandatory attendance norms can coexist with voluntary encouragement, offering a balanced approach. While structured policies ensure a minimum standard of participation, a focus on voluntary attendance enhances responsibility and intrinsic motivation. For instance, institutions could maintain a baseline attendance requirement but complement it with opportunities for students to choose their learning paths through engaging class activities and flexible participation options.
Submission Voluntary attendance also contributes to a positive academic atmosphere, where students attend classes out of interest and engagement rather than compulsion. This shift in perspective improves classroom dynamics, instilling a cooperative spirit, respect, and mutual learning among peers and between students and faculty.
Encouraging voluntary attendance nurtures responsibility and accountability in students while creating a more engaging and inclusive educational environment. By focusing on interactive learning, positive reinforcement, and empathetic policies, institutions can inspire students to participate actively and willingly in their academic journey. This approach aligns with the broader goals of encouraging professional growth and preparing students for success in their future endeavors."
9. On behalf of the learned Amicus Curiae, it is highlighted that the consultation with the regulatory bodies as placed on record by the Union of India recognises that barring students from taking exams ought not be one of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 6 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 the consequences of poor attendance. Instead students could be made to attend extra classes and submit extra assignments to make up on poor attendance and should be encouraged towards completing their attendance requirements without debarring them. In addition, the mental health issue of the students has also been raised in this consultation report.
10. The Court has considered the submissions made today as also the report which has been placed before the Court. Clearly, the BCI ought to take into consideration the actual situation prevalent on the ground in respect of the discipline of Law. It is usual that Law students also parallelly work with lawyers and attend Courts as interns to increase their learning curve. Additionally, the fact that on several occasions, classes may also not be held due to teachers being on leave etc., also needs to be taken into consideration.
11. The attendance ought to be fixed considering the number of leaves that are sanctioned by the University Grants Commission ('UGC') for the faculty as well. Any attendance requirement which is unrealistic and has the impact of debarring a student from taking exams would be contrary to the student's interest. In line with para 11 extracted above, the BCI ought to consider the following:-
(i) Reduction of the baseline requirement from 70%, which is presently mandatory.
(ii) whether the baseline requirement and voluntary attendance requirement can be made different for 3 years' LL.B course and 5 years' LL.B course. Should the baseline attendance be the same for all the academic years or the same should be reduced as the course progresses.
(iii) Making provisions for giving attendance in respect of internships, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 7 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 assignments, case studies and any other practical work undertaken by law students;
(iv) Non-debarment of students from taking exams, which may result in enormous frustration for students and also lead to loss of an academic year for the students;
12. A recent circular BCI:D:5186/2024 dated 24th September, 2024 has been mentioned in this extract, however, the said circular has not been attached. As per the report, the circular claims to be mandating biometric attendance system for law colleges. This could have a grossly adverse impact on students, and, therefore, the BCI ought to reconsider the same.
13. Let the above stated aspects be considered by the BCI and an affidavit be filed on behalf of the BCI attaching the extracts of the report, as also the circular BCI:D:5186/2024 dated 24th September, 2024. Let the affidavit by the Bar Council of India be filed by 15th January, 2025.
14. The UGC shall also place on record the permissible leaves which are given to faculty members, both at the Professor and the Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/ Lecturer level in law colleges as well as their schedule of work hours/classes as per rules.
15. This shall be treated as a part-heard matter.
16. List on 11th February, 2025 for consideration.
CRL.M.A. 37731/202417. The prayer in this application is for the inclusion of the appearance of Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel appearing for Jamia Milia Islamia University in order dated 6th November, 2024.
18. Ld. Counsel submits that he had appeared in the matter on the said date. Inadvertently, it appears that the name has been not reflected in the order. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 8 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50 appearance of Mr. Pritish Sabharwal for the said date is taken on record.
19. The application is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AMIT SHARMA JUDGE DECEMBER 16, 2024/kr/ks/sc Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 Page 9 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:19.12.2024 16:50