Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Begin Stakeholder Discussions On Requirement Of Mandatory Attendance Norms In UG & PG Courses

The Delhi High Court in a slew of directions has asked the Secretary, Union Ministry of Education (dealing with Higher Education) to commence within two weeks stakeholder consultations to discuss whether attendance norms should be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba Singh and Justice Amit Sharma in its September 9 order further directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Secretary, Ministry of Education (Department of Higher Education) to issue a circular across the country, "as a last opportunity", to all educational institutions–both at undergraduate and postgraduate level, to "constitute their Grievance Redressal Committees within two weeks, failing which action would be taken as per law".

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.

Meanwhile, the court in its order further said that while deliberating upon the aspect of mandatory attendance norms, stakeholders shall keep certain factors in mind during the discussions.

The court said this after noting the submissions made by various parties including the Union of India, regulatory authorities and educational institutions which are parties in the matter.

"The ld. ASG has clearly taken the position that the Central Government is willing to undertake consultations with regard to the attendance norms. Such consultation in the opinion of the Court would be necessary to enable gathering of views of all stakeholders including institutions of higher education, teachers, students, parent bodies etc. Various factors need to be considered in order to decide as to whether attendance norms ought to be mandatory or not," the bench underscored.

Notably among these factors, the stakeholders have been asked to consider the safeguards that institutions need to put in place to accommodate students, who do not fulfil these norms, and whether enforcement of the norms through penalties like "debarment from exams, halting promotion to the next class/ academic year" should be permitted.

Another factor that the court has listed in its order, is the "impact" of mandatory attendance norms on the "physical and mental health" of the students and the role of Grievance Redressal Committees.

Other factors are–whether mandatory attendance norms are being "actually followed" in institutions of higher education or have been rendered redundant in most courses, especially in non-clinical and non-practical courses; whether these norms are being genuinely followed by students as it was stated that attendance by proxy has become quite prevalent, at least in some institutions; would mandatory attendance requirements be necessary in courses which are based purely on theory or self-learning.

The stakeholders are to also consider whether mandatory attendance norms would be required considering students have access to various "learning platforms", including internet platforms; whether these norms have been prescribed in other countries–in which countries, and for which courses; whether these norms can be relaxed and in which manner and for which courses.

"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; Whether a warning system ought to be put in place before penalising any students or parents for lacking in attendance; Whether teachers also ought to be answerable for lack of attendance by students," the order notes.

The court thereafter directed the UGC to file its affidavit on aspects mentioned in the court's earlier order of August 21. The court further directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to submit the material relied by it while taking the stand that "attendance norms are mandatory internationally as well". The bench further said that on the aspect of international attendance norms, if any other institution/parties wish to place any material it can do so.

The high court also asked the counsel for respondent no. 1– Amity Law School, Delhi to "seek instructions" on if the institution is willing to make "any ex-gratia compensation" to the family of the deceased student.

Permitting the institutions who have been added as parties in the matter to file their responses on the mandatory attendance norm issue, the court listed the matter on October 14.

Background

The high court had in its August 21 order said that there is 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.

The court had then also noted that the crux of the issue is "whether attendance requirements ought to be mandatory in Institutions offering Under Graduate as also Post Graduate programs". Directions were given for impleadment of various regulatory bodies including the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of India and the Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma was also asked to assist the court.

Meanwhile the high court in its September 9 order noted the position taken by the Bar Council of India stating that Rule 12 of Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 prescribes a mandatory attendance of 70%. In its affidavit the bar body said that under Rule 2(xvi) a Legal Education Committee ('LEC') has to be constituted by the BCI and this Committee prescribes the norms to be followed at law colleges.

BCI's counsel also emphasized that in other countries of the world as well, there are mandatory attendance norms which are fixed and in view of the requirements of the profession, such norms "ought to be followed". Giving an example of American Bar Association, BCI said, that the association is stated to have a "mandatory attendance policies for students" and similar rules are prevalent in the UK and Australia as well.

BCI had however said that while sanctity and rigours of the legal education need to be maintained, the pressures on students including their "mental health etc., is also of utmost importance". The bar body said that it is willing to deliberate any changes that may be required in the attendance norms, after placing the same before the Legal Education Committee.

ASG Sharma appearing for the Union of India said that with respect to mandatory attendance norms, large scale consultations would be required with various stakeholders including teachers, students and bodies like the UGC, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Medical Commission (NMC), Institute of Clinical Research ('ICR'), BCI etc.

Meanwhile the UGC's counsel said that under the New Education Policy, there are various relaxations prescribed, but he prayed for filing a detailed affidavit. NMC's counsel said that for Under Graduate medical courses, the attendance norms require 75 % attendance and for Post Graduate courses 80 % attendance is a mandatory requirement.

The counsel appearing for National Institute of technology, Delhi (NIT) said that in Engineering courses, the usual norm is 75% mandatory attendance. South Asian University's counsel also said that in SAU 75 % is the mandatory attendance.

Meanwhile on behalf of the deceased student's sister it was submitted, that as per the BCI Rules 2008 there are "obligations even on teachers to take lectures and if the rules are translated into actual lecture hours, it requires 36 lecture hours per week for 18 weeks". This would in effect mean that 6 lectures of one hour each would have to be held everyday for 6 days every week, it was submitted.

Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

Click Here To Download Order