Recently, the Delhi High Court directed Amity University to grant ex gratia compensation to the family of Sushant Rohilla, who tragically died by suicide in 2016 after being prohibited from taking his semester exams due to low attendance.

A bench comprising Justice Prathibha Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, while addressing the issue of mandatory attendance in colleges, directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Education to convene a stakeholder consultation on enforcing attendance requirements in undergraduate and postgraduate institutions nationwide.

Furthermore, the court ordered the creation of a nationwide grievance redressal mechanism within two weeks.

The case originated from a petition filed before the Supreme Court in 2016, following a letter from Mehak, Sushant Rohilla's sister, to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), alleging harassment by Amity University's administration. In March 2017, the Apex Court transferred the case to the Delhi High Court.

During the proceedings, the counsel representing Amity Law School contended before the bench that Sushant Rohilla, a 23-year-old student, did not hold anyone from the institution responsible in his suicide note.

Considering the arguments made, the bench stressed that people have been fighting this case for years, stating, "In a law school like yours, such incidents are unfortunate. In fact, compensation should have been announced immediately." 

The court underscored the need for the institution to adopt a more compassionate approach, describing the situation as a "systemic failure." It further directed Amity Law School to provide ex gratia compensation to the family of the deceased.

''In such cases, you can't argue. Your shoulders should be broad enough to take responsibility'', the bench was quoted as saying.

While discussing the issue of attendance before the bench, the counsel for the Bar Council of India (BCI) argued that relaxing attendance requirements is not a feasible solution, as attendance is fundamental to the course structure. While recognizing the mental health challenges faced by students, the advocate stressed that rather than easing attendance norms, the focus should be on:
- Establishing a robust grievance redressal mechanism,
- Providing psychological counseling services, and
- Creating a supportive educational environment.

The counsel for the BCI also highlighted international attendance standards before the court and emphasized the rule that "no student of any degree program shall be permitted to sit for an end-semester examination in a subject if they have not attended at least 70 percent of the classes, including moot court practicals and similar activities."

Notably, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Centre, submitted that a large-scale consultation would be necessary with various stakeholders, including bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC), National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), and National Council for Vocational Education and Training. He further requested around six weeks to conduct the consultations.

Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for the UGC, informed the court that systematic changes have been implemented in light of the New Education Policy (NEP), with the UGC requiring only 75% attendance. He also mentioned that relaxation guidelines and provisions for physical and mental health support are already in place. Gaur assured the court that a detailed affidavit would be filed within two weeks.

In response, the court directed the UGC and the Secretary of the Ministry of Education to issue a circular to all educational institutions, mandating the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism within two weeks. The court scheduled the next hearing for October 14.

Advocate Pragya Paarijat Singh, representing South Asian University, informed the court that the university enforces a mandatory attendance requirement of 75%. Similarly, counsels for institutions like NIT and IIT also confirmed that 75% attendance is compulsory. Additionally, the counsel for the Indian Law Institute (ILI) reported that a grievance redressal committee has already been established.

Previously, the court had questioned the necessity of strict attendance policies, observing that "education is no longer confined to classroom teaching or textbook learning, but has expanded into more practical areas."