In a recent suo motu case concerning the tragic suicide of an Amity law student, the Delhi High Court has called upon the Bar Council of India (BCI) to clarify its stance on the attendance requirements for the five-year LL.B. program.

The bench, consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, directed the Legal Education Committee of the BCI to submit an affidavit addressing the attendance issue within the next two weeks.

The case revolves around Sushant Rohilla, who took his own life in 2016 after being barred from taking his semester exams due to insufficient attendance. His sister, Mehak, had previously written to the Chief Justice of India, alleging harassment by the administration at Amity University.

Recognizing that the current case focuses on the BCI's attendance mandates for the LL.B. degree, the bench instructed the Legal Education Committee to convene a virtual meeting and present its position on the attendance requirements set forth in Paragraph 32(b) of the order issued on September 9, 2024.

On that date, the same bench had mandated the Secretary of the Ministry of Education to facilitate a stakeholder consultation aimed at evaluating the necessity of mandatory attendance across undergraduate and postgraduate institutions nationwide. Furthermore, the court requested the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism within two weeks.

During the proceedings, Advocate Kirtiman Singh, representing the Union of India, submitted a brief report indicating compliance with the court's directives. However, the bench noted the report lacked a list of higher educational institutions that received the circular dated September 19, 2024, concerning the formation of Grievance Redressal Committees for students in higher education.

Consequently, the bench ordered the Department of Higher Education to submit a detailed affidavit, including a comprehensive list of institutions that received the communication from the Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The bench emphasized that this list must also reflect the institutions that have provided responses to the circular.

Additionally, the court requested the minutes from the consultation meeting held on October 7, 2024. If no minutes were documented, the results of that meeting should be summarized in the affidavit submitted by the Department of Higher Education.

In discussing the circumstances surrounding the law student's suicide, Advocate Ashok Mahajan, representing Amity Law School, insisted that the institution was not at fault, asserting that the student’s parents had been repeatedly informed about the attendance shortfall.

Advocate Preet Pal Singh, representing the Bar Council of India, presented a document detailing the constitution of the Legal Education Committee and attendance policies from various international universities.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, serving as amicus curiae in the case, brought to the court’s attention the disturbing trend of student suicides at various institutions.

In light of these developments, the court has ordered the Union of India, Amity University, and other involved parties to file affidavits within two weeks to facilitate further proceedings.