Delhi High Court Seeks BCI's Stand On Attendance Requirements For 5-Year LLB Courses In Suo Moto Case Over Student's Suicide
The Delhi High Court has recently sought stand of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the attendance requirements for five year LL.B. degree courses. A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma asked the BCI's Legal Education Committee to hold a virtual meeting for finalising its position and directed that an affidavit...
The Delhi High Court has recently sought stand of the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding the attendance requirements for five year LL.B. degree courses.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma asked the BCI's Legal Education Committee to hold a virtual meeting for finalising its position and directed that an affidavit be filed within two weeks.
The bench was dealing with a suo motu case concerning the suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a student of Amity Law School, Delhi in 2016. His friend wrote a letter to then CJI alleging in August that year that Rohilla was subjected to harassment by the college and some faculty members for maintaining low attendance.
As per the letter, Rohilla was forced to repeat an entire academic year. The Supreme Court had then taken cognizance of the letter petition by the friend, and had finally in its order of March 6, 2017 transferred the matter to the high court which has been hearing the matter.
In its order passed on October 14, the Bench recorded that BCI's counsel had placed on record a document consisting the constitution of the Legal Education Committee of the lawyers' body and the Attendance Requirements of Various International Universities.
“The present case relates to attendance requirements prescribed for the LL.B. degree (five year course) which is prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Accordingly, let the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India hold a meeting and place its stand before the Court in respect of the attendance requirements after considering the prevalent requirements for attendance and also the factors set out in Paragraph 32(b) of the order dated 9th September, 2024,” the Court said.
The bench was informed by Union Government that pursuant to its last order, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had written a letter on September 19 directed all Higher Educational Institutes to take immediate steps to constitute Students' Grievance Redressal Committees as provided in the UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023.
However, the bench noted that the short note submitted by the Central Government did not capture the outcome of the consultation meeting which was held on October 07 7th with all the Statutory Councils or Bodies in the matter, along with UGC and AICTE.
“Let a proper affidavit be filed on behalf of the Department of Higher Education giving the complete details of the list of the institutions to whom the letter dated 19th September, 2024 has been issued by the Secretary, UGC. In the said list, all the institutions whose responses have been received shall also be reflected,” the bench said.
Furthermore, the counsel appearing for Amity Law School that Rohilla's parents were duly notified from time to time regarding the shortage of his attendance and thus, the institution cannot be blamed for his death.
The Bench then asked the counsel to obtain instructions if the varsity was willing to make ex-gratia compensation to Rohilla's family.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appearing as amicus curiae in the matter submitted that there have been recent unfortunate incidents of suicides in different institutions. He sought permission to place on record a note to expand the scope of the consultation.
Allowing the request, the Court listed the matter for hearing next on November 06.
Last month, the Bench had asked the Secretary, Union Ministry of Education (dealing with Higher Education) to commence stakeholder consultations to discuss whether attendance norms should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
On August 21, the Bench had said that there was an imminent need to have reconsideration of mandatory attendance norms in undergraduate or postgraduate courses.
It had said that it intends to form a Committee to study various factors and to place a report as to what uniform practices can be evolved for undergraduate and postgraduate courses in respect of attendance requirements.
Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1139