New Delhi: The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant relief to a Delhi University law student with “zero attendance” has reopened a growing conflict inside India’s law schools: whether legal education should continue to revolve around classroom presence or adapt to a profession where internships, court exposure and practical training increasingly determine career success.
While some students and universities posit that attendance rules are essential to academic discipline, others say rigid policies ignore how legal learning now takes place far beyond lecture halls.
The debate has surfaced in the case of Aman Bansal, enrolled in the three-year LLB programme at the University of Delhi, who sought continuation into the next semester without having attended the classes and examinations of the previous semester.
A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that students who neither attend classes nor participate in the academic process cannot seek parity with those who merely fall short of prescribed attendance requirements, drawing a clear distinction between complete absence and low attendance. The judges thus declined Bansal’s plea for progression to the next semester of study.
The ruling also revisits questions raised last year in the Delhi High Court’s Sushant Rohilla judgment, where the court had held that students enrolled in recognised law institutions should not be debarred from exams solely because of attendance shortages.
However, the HC noted in its order in the Aman Bansal case on 14 May: “The benefit of the decision in Sushant Rohilla cannot be extended to students who neither took admission to nor attended any classes in the relevant semester.”
The Sushant Rohilla judgment had triggered discussion across law schools because it was seen by many as softening the traditional rigidity surrounding attendance rules. Universities across the country were forced to reconsider how strictly they could enforce attendance requirements, especially in professional courses like law where plenty of learning takes place outside the classroom.
In contrast to this, for generations of Indian students earlier, attendance was seen as a simple prerequisite for examinations. Show up to class, meet the required percentage, and you could sit for exams.
“Personally, I feel some minimum attendance criteria should be there,” Lovepreet Singh, a BBA LLB student at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, told ThePrint. “This unprecedented shift after the relaxation (in Sushant Rohilla) has caused havoc among law students, with many not attending classes at all and classroom participation declining significantly.”
At the same time, many students believe rigid attendance rules fail to recognise the realities of modern legal training. Now, internships begin earlier and students spend more time outside campus walls, often balancing academic requirements with practical exposure that they believe matters more for their future careers.
“Legal education is not confined to classrooms,” said Ume Ayman, a fifth-year BA LLB (Honours) student at Alliance University in Bengaluru. “When a student skips a lecture because they’re sitting in a court hearing or doing an internship, they’re not slacking off. They’re learning in a way no textbook can teach.”
Also Read: National Education Policy still lacks research and resources to reform Indian mindset
The case of Aman Bansal
In Aman Bansal’s case, the Delhi High Court drew a sharp distinction between low attendance and its complete absence.
Bansal had cleared all five papers in his first semester and scored 354 out of 500 marks. In the second semester, however, his attendance fell to 27.58%, leading to his detention by the university.
According to court records, the University of Delhi later constituted a committee which provisionally allowed him to sit for the second semester examinations. Although he appeared in those exams, his results were eventually withheld and he was denied admission into the third semester.
Bansal argued before the court that the committee’s final decision was never communicated to him. He also submitted that no allegations of misconduct or malpractice had been levelled against him.
To avoid losing an academic year, he took readmission in the second semester and deposited the required fee. He later approached the Delhi High Court seeking declaration of his second semester results and restoration of what he described as his “academic continuity and progression”.
Earlier this year, a single-judge bench of the HC directed the university to declare his second semester result and permit admission to the third semester classroom if he was otherwise eligible. At the same time, the court noted that Bansal was seeking progression despite not attending classes or appearing in examinations for the third semester. The judge thus declined his plea for appearing in the fourth semester examinations.
Challenging that order, Bansal moved a division bench of the Delhi High Court, which noted that the “sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant can be permitted to appear in the Semester-IV examinations despite having neither attended any classes nor appeared in the examinations for Semester III”.
His counsel argued that under the LLB prospectus, students were eligible for promotion to the third term upon clearing at least five papers cumulatively across the first and second semesters.
The court, however, ultimately refused relief, observing that “zero attendance” (in third semester) stood on a fundamentally different footing from mere shortage of attendance.
For several students, the ruling once again raises the question whether attendance rules continue to serve their original purpose.
A flexible option
At Delhi’s Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, fourth-year BA LLB student Akshay Tiwari describes a system where flexibility often operates informally rather than through written policy.
“My college administration is understanding and quite liberal with the attendance policy,” he told ThePrint. “You have to submit an internship certificate and speak to the faculty. They ask for proper documents and sometimes talk to the professor or head of department before allowing it.”
According to him, students pursuing internships are generally expected to continue participating in assessments and examinations, but colleges do not always insist on rigid physical attendance if students can justify their absence.
“There’s no policy which explicitly says you can miss college (studies),” he said. “But they won’t debar you if you give a proper explanation. Students usually get debarred when they haven’t submitted even one project, attended one class, or appeared for any exam.”
Students supporting stricter attendance norms, on the other hand, argue that recent relaxations have had visible consequences on classroom participation and academic discipline.
According to DU’s Lovepreet Singh, the culture within Delhi University changed significantly after courts repeatedly intervened to protect students with low attendance.
“Earlier, DU required roughly 70% attendance. But after repeated relaxations and provisional permissions granted to students, the culture changed dramatically,” he explained.
“Even students with around 10% attendance were provisionally allowed to appear in semester exams,” he added. “This has seriously affected classroom participation and academic discipline.”
For many students, the concern is not simply administrative compliance but the fear that classrooms are gradually losing relevance altogether.
Several students say attendance shortages have become common because many lectures are viewed as repetitive, poorly structured or disconnected from practical legal work.
At the same time, students advocating flexibility argue that universities have failed to adapt to the professional realities of legal education.
Internships, particularly in litigation chambers, corporate law firms, NGOs and trial courts, have become indispensable for students hoping to secure placements or chambers after graduation. In many cases, internship schedules overlap directly with academic semesters, forcing students to choose between classroom attendance and professional exposure.
‘Need for academic reform’
According to Alliance University’s Ayman, the issue is not whether attendance requirement should exist at all, but whether universities are willing to recognise forms of learning that occur outside traditional classrooms.
At her university, attendance requirements remain strict, with students needing to maintain 75% attendance to remain eligible for examinations. Ayman said the rigidity extends even to medical leave policy. “Certificates are only accepted from government hospitals or a specific list of approved institutions.”
Many students now see internships as equally important as lectures, particularly because recruitment processes in law increasingly reward prior practical exposure. Corporate firms expect internship experience. Litigation chambers look for students familiar with court procedure. NGOs and policy organisations often prioritise field experience over classroom grades alone.
This shift has altered how students themselves define legal education.
At Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, first-year BA LLB (Honours) student Akshit Joon said students with “zero attendance” cannot reasonably expect academic progression in a professional course.
“Complete absence from classes reflects a lack of sincerity and commitment,” he asserted.
At the same time, he believes many law colleges outside a handful of elite national law universities struggle with poor teaching quality, reducing incentives for students to attend lectures regularly.
Speaking to ThePrint, Daniya Razi, who also studies at the university, said the larger problem lies in the absence of institutional balance.
“The solution should be academic reform and balance, rather than an either-or situation where students must sacrifice either degree requirements or their future career prospects by foregoing internships,” she explained.
The Delhi High Court 14 May ruling may have clarified one thing for now. Students who do not attend a single class cannot automatically demand progression into the next semester. But the larger debate over attendance, internships and the purpose of legal education remains unresolved.
Across India’s law schools, students continue to negotiate two competing expectations. Universities still view classrooms as central to academic discipline and institutional structure. Students increasingly view practical exposure as equally essential to survival in an intensely competitive profession.
The result is a growing disconnect between how legal education is administered and how many students experience it on the ground.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Is Delhi University no longer in demand? Vacant seats, misfit faculty, bloated syllabus