The bench observed that while there could be exceptions to the strict attendance requirement, such exceptions must be explicitly prescribed in the rules. It emphasized that attendance shortages should not be condoned merely on request, except in urgent or unavoidable circumstances such as medical emergencies.  

In this case, the court found no such exceptional circumstances and stated it was not inclined to interfere with the single judge’s February 11 judgment.  

The petitioner, a third-semester LLB student, contended that a provisional list of detainees—students failing to meet the minimum attendance criterion—was published on December 22, 2024. She argued that her name was not included in this provisional list but appeared in the final list released on January 4, leading to her exam admit card being withheld.  

Aggrieved by this, she approached the High Court, seeking the removal of her name from the list of detainees. However, the division bench noted that the petitioner was aware of her attendance shortage when she paid the pending fee on time, reinforcing the decision to deny her relief.

"Apparently, despite attending the remedial classes, it is on record that her total percentage of attendance is only 54 per cent. This has been clearly recorded by the single judge in the impugned order," it said.

"The rules of the respondent or university prescribe attendance at 70 per cent for eligibility to participate in a particular semester examination," it added.

The bench noted that the single judge, relying on previous judgments of the court, had emphasized that the attendance requirement set by the university was sacrosanct and could not be relaxed in any manner.  

Additionally, the single judge underscored that the LLB course, being a professional degree, demanded a higher level of commitment and seriousness compared to regular degree programs.