Delhi High Court: In the suo motu petition relating to attendance requirements prescribed for the LL.B. degree (five year course) which is prescribed by the Bar Council of India stemming from a tragic suicide of a law student at Amity Law School, who took his life allegedly due to severe academic pressure stemming from attendance shortages, a division bench of Pratibha M. Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., directed the Bar Council of India to reassess its mandatory attendance requirements for LL.B. students, considering both national and international standards by conducting a thorough review through its Legal Education Committee and submit its findings.
The Court further directed University Grants Commission (UGC) to ensure that all higher educational institutions establish Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs) to address student concerns and sought clarification from Amity Law School on whether it would offer ex-gratia compensation to the deceased students family.
The Court also seeks judicial intervention concerning the strict attendance requirements imposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) for undergraduate law courses as well as raised concerns about the broader issue of addressing student grievances in educational institutions across the country, highlighting the need for reforms to prevent such tragedies in the future.
The facts of the case are that Amity Law School, Delhi, which operates under the aegis of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, enforces stringent attendance requirements as per the Bar Council of India’s regulations. A law student, faced difficulties in meeting these attendance norms, resulting in academic pressures. Despite repeated warnings to his parents, as submitted by the counsel for Amity, the situation escalated, eventually leading to his unfortunate demise.
In response, the Court initiated a wider inquiry into the attendance norms applicable at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and directed the Ministry of Education to engage in stakeholder consultations. The focus of the inquiry extended beyond just this particular case to consider whether attendance norms ought to be made mandatory and how grievance redressal mechanisms for students could be improved across higher education institutions.
Counsel for Union of India presented a short note dated 14-10-2024, detailing the government’s compliance with the Court’s directions. It was reported that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had issued directives to all Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) on 19-09-2024 to immediately constitute Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs). The institutions were required to submit details of these committees to their affiliating universities, which in turn had to report back to the UGC by 24-09-2024. Additionally, a stakeholder consultation had commenced, with an initial meeting held on 07-10-2024. However, the note failed to provide a complete account of the outcomes of this consultation.
Counsel for Amity Law School argued that the institution had complied with all the necessary regulations and informed the parents about the attendance issues on several occasions. He emphasized that Amity could not be blamed for the unfortunate events that transpired and sought more time to consider whether it was willing to offer ex-gratia compensation to the students’ family.
Counsel for Bar Council of India (BCI) submitted documents concerning the Legal Education Committee’s constitution and the attendance requirements followed by various international universities. The Court directed the BCI’s Legal Education Committee to conduct a meeting and finalize its stance on whether the existing attendance norms were appropriate, keeping in mind global practices and the factors outlined in the court’s previous order.
The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the note submitted by the Ministry of Education, as it did not capture the full details of the consultation process held on 07-10- 2024. The Court noted that the lack of detailed minutes or any concrete outcomes from this meeting undermined the progress made in addressing the core issues raised.
Thus, the Court directed Union of India, Amity Law School, and other parties to file affidavits within two weeks addressing the issues raised, particularly with respect to the outcome of the consultation meeting, the constitution of grievance committees in educational institutions, and Amity’s position on ex-gratia compensation. The Bar Council of India was also directed to convene a virtual meeting of its Legal Education Committee to finalize its views on attendance norms and file an affidavit within two weeks.
[Courts on its Own Motion in Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University, W.P.(CRL) 793/2017, decided on 14-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr Adv. (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri & Mr. Shreedhar Kale, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC, Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Maulik Khurana & Mr. Ranjeev Khatana, Advs. for Union of India, Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) for GNCTD, Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Sourabh Kumar, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani and Ms. Anum Hussain, Advs. for National Medical Commission and Dental Council of India, Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Advocate for AICTE, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC NSUT with Mr. Amitoj Chadha, Ms. Lavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for respondent, Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for Jamia Millia Islamia, Mr. Raajan Chawla, Mr. Gautam Chauhan & Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Advs. for R-1, Mr. Honey Khanna & Mr. Shyam Singh, Advs. for R-4 and 5, Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Mr. Rahul Pandey & Mr. Sudipta Singha Roy, Advs. for AIIMS, Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate for R-13 (IIMC), Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. for R-14 & 15, Mr. Ankit Jain, Mr. Aditya Chauhan & Ms. Divyanshu Rathi, Advs. for Indian Law Institute, Ms. Bharathi Raju, Senior Panel Counsel for R-16, Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr. Ritank Kumar, Advs. for R-19, Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Adv. for University of Delhi, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Adv. for Jamia Hamdard University, Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate for R-24, Mr. Joby P Varghese, Advocate, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, and Ms. Mrinaal Kishor, Advocates for R-27, Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, and Mrinal Kishor, Advocates for R-28, Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Advocate for Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri University, Mr. Ankit Jain and Ms. Divyanshu Rathi, Advs. for ILI, Mr. Raajan Chawla and Ms. Yashi Singh, Advs. for Amity Law School, Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh and Mr. Lakshay Saini, Advs. for R-32, Ms. Anju Bhushan Gupta, Mr. Aditya Goel, and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs. for R-33, Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Mr. Gyanendra Shukla, and Mr. Pranav Das, Advocates for DPSRU, Mr. Keshav Datta, Advocate, Intervener, Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Advocate for Lal Bahadur Central Sanskrit University, Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mrs. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Simrat Kaur, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Mr. Madhukar Pandy & Mr. Unmukt Bhardwaj, Advocates for Bar Council of India, Ms. Ginny J Rautray, Mr. Navdeep Singh, Ms. Devika Thakur & Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advs. for R-12 & 22.
The post appeared first on .