Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court on June 30 considered a batch of writ petitions filed by students of the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, challenging the university’s decision to impose year-loss and compulsory re-admission on account of alleged attendance shortages. The petitions, led by Dhawal Mittal v. National Law School of India University & Other Connected Matters (W.P. No. 18046/2026 & Ors.), came up before the Single Bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, where the students questioned the legality and fairness of the university’s attendance policy and its implementation under the Academic and Examination Regulations (AER), 2022.
The petitions arise out of notices issued by the Academic Administration Department (AAD) and decisions of the Academic Review Committee (ARC), whereby several students were declared ineligible to appear for examinations or were subjected to year-loss and compulsory re-admission due to shortage of attendance. According to the petitioners, the attendance calculations were arbitrary and failed to account for mandatory office-hour components and class hours lost because students were required to appear for repeat examinations that were scheduled simultaneously with regular classes.
The controversy assumes significance because it concerns the balance between a university’s autonomy in regulating academic standards and the constitutional obligation to ensure fairness, equality, and non-arbitrariness in administrative decision-making. The petitioners contend that the implementation of the attendance regulations has unfairly affected nearly thirty students despite their satisfactory academic performance, while the university maintains that attendance requirements are mandatory and form an essential component of legal education governed by institutional regulations and the standards prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
At this preliminary stage, the High Court did not examine the merits of the challenge. Instead, it considered the maintainability of the petitions, the request for interim relief, and the need to obtain the university’s response before adjudicating the issues raised by the students.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the university had enforced its attendance regulations in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable manner, resulting in serious academic consequences for several students. According to them, nearly thirty students were affected by the impugned decisions despite being similarly situated to other students who were permitted to appear for examinations even though their attendance was allegedly below the prescribed threshold.
A major grievance raised before the Court related to the scheduling of repeat examinations. Counsel submitted that repeat examinations were conducted on the very days when regular classes were held, thereby forcing students to choose between attending classes and appearing for examinations. Consequently, those who chose to write the repeat examinations inevitably lost attendance for the classes conducted simultaneously and were later penalised for the resulting shortage. The petitioners argued that such a system was inherently unfair because the attendance deficit arose solely due to the university’s own scheduling decisions rather than any fault on the part of the students.
The petitioners also challenged the manner in which attendance was calculated by the Academic Administration Department. One petitioner contended that mandatory office-hour components had not been included while computing attendance, although such components formed part of the academic requirements. Another petitioner argued that attendance lost while appearing for the Jurisprudence II repeat examination should have been credited, as the examination itself was conducted by the university during regular instructional hours.
Similarly, another petitioner questioned the decision debarring her from appearing in the Intellectual Property Law examination on the ground that her attendance was below 66 percent. She submitted that if attendance lost because of illness and repeat examinations held between March 9 and March 12, 2026, were appropriately considered, her attendance would exceed the minimum requirement under Regulation 4.5 of the Academic and Examination Regulations.
The petitioners further alleged that the university itself had not complied with the Bar Council of India norms requiring sixty instructional hours for each subject. It was submitted that in several courses only fifty-one instructional hours were conducted. According to the petitioners, had the university fully complied with both the Bar Council regulations and its own Academic and Examination Regulations, the present dispute would not have arisen.
Counsel also informed the Court that a separate writ petition would shortly be filed challenging the validity of the Academic and Examination Regulations, 2022, themselves. Pending adjudication of the dispute, the petitioners sought interim relief directing the university to provisionally promote the affected students so that they would not suffer the irreversible consequence of losing an entire academic year.
The Court, however, questioned the maintainability of the petitions as well as the nature of the relief sought. Justice Kinagi orally observed that students aggrieved by matters concerning legal education could also approach the Bar Council of India. The Court questioned how students expected to complete their law degree without complying with attendance requirements and observed that making allegations against the university alone would not resolve the issue. The Bench also questioned whether provisional promotion could be granted when the students themselves had allegedly not fulfilled the eligibility conditions prescribed by the regulations.
Appearing on behalf of NLSIU, Advocate Aditya Narayan sought time to file a detailed response to the allegations. The university submitted that it would answer each of the petitioners’ contentions after placing its reply on record. The respondents opposed the immediate grant of interim relief and maintained that the issues required proper adjudication after considering the factual and legal position.
Court’s Judgment:
At the present stage, the Karnataka High Court did not enter into the merits of the controversy regarding the legality of the attendance regulations or the correctness of the attendance calculations. Instead, the Court confined itself to hearing the preliminary submissions of the parties and deciding the procedural course to be adopted before adjudicating the petitions.
Justice Ashok S. Kinagi repeatedly questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and the appropriateness of the relief sought by the petitioners. During the hearing, the Court orally observed that students aggrieved by the university’s actions could approach the Bar Council of India, particularly where the grievances related to legal education and regulatory standards. The Court appeared to indicate that the Bar Council, being the statutory regulator of legal education, may also be an appropriate forum to consider issues relating to compliance with educational norms.
The Court also questioned the practical consequences of granting the interim relief sought by the petitioners. While counsel requested provisional promotion so that students would not lose an academic year, the Bench observed that such a direction would effectively allow students to attend classes without satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. The Court therefore expressed reservations about granting interim relief before examining the university’s justification for its actions.
During the course of the hearing, the Bench also observed that the examinations had already concluded and questioned whether the nature of the dispute would ultimately require a different form of relief. These observations reflected the Court’s concern regarding the maintainability of the petitions and the feasibility of granting effective interim directions after completion of the examination process.
Although the petitioners highlighted alleged discrimination in the treatment of similarly placed students and challenged the university’s interpretation of the Academic and Examination Regulations, the Court considered it appropriate to first obtain the university’s detailed response before expressing any opinion on those allegations. The Court recognised that questions relating to attendance computation, implementation of academic regulations, office-hour requirements, repeat examinations, and compliance with Bar Council norms involved factual issues that required examination after pleadings were complete.
Consequently, the Court granted the respondents time to file their statement of objections. While doing so, the Bench declined to grant the interim relief of provisional promotion sought by the petitioners. The Court did not stay the operation of the impugned attendance notices or the year-loss consequences at this stage.
The matter was accordingly adjourned to the following month for further hearing after the university files its reply. The Court’s order keeps all substantive questions open for future consideration, including the validity of the attendance calculations, the interpretation of the Academic and Examination Regulations, the alleged discriminatory implementation of attendance requirements, and the petitioners’ proposed challenge to the regulations themselves.
The proceedings are significant because they involve larger issues concerning university autonomy, fairness in academic administration, and judicial review of educational policies. While educational institutions enjoy considerable freedom in framing academic standards and attendance requirements, such decisions remain subject to constitutional scrutiny where allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of natural justice are raised. The final adjudication of these petitions is therefore likely to provide important guidance on the extent to which courts may interfere with internal academic decisions while respecting institutional autonomy.
At this stage, however, the Karnataka High Court has merely granted time for the university to respond and has declined to grant interim protection, leaving the merits of the dispute to be decided after considering the complete pleadings and the relevant statutory and regulatory framework.