Introduction:

In Ms Muskaan Aamir v Union of India and Another decided by the Delhi High Court a batch of writ petitions filed by LL B students of the University of Delhi was allowed by Justice Jasmeet Singh who held that shortage of attendance by itself cannot be treated as a valid ground to detain students from appearing in examinations or to prevent them from continuing their academic journey. The petitioners were students enrolled in the law programme of the University of Delhi who had either been barred from appearing in end semester examinations or whose results were withheld because they failed to meet the mandatory seventy percent attendance requirement prescribed by the university. The students approached the High Court contending that such detention and withholding of results violated binding judicial precedents and also defeated the broader objectives of legal education which are aimed at facilitating learning and professional development rather than excluding students on rigid technical grounds. The Court was called upon to examine whether attendance shortage can legally justify academic detention when earlier binding judgments had already disapproved such practice and whether undertakings obtained from students prior to such judgments could override constitutional principles laid down by courts.

Arguments:

The petitioners argued that the issue of attendance related detention in law courses was no longer res integra and had already been conclusively settled by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sushant Rohilla v Law Student of IP University where it was categorically held that no law student can be detained from appearing in examinations or prevented from further academic progression solely on the ground of shortage of attendance. They submitted that the Division Bench had also directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider rigid attendance norms in light of the National Education Policy 2020 and the UGC Regulations of 2003 which emphasise flexibility in higher education. The petitioners contended that despite this clear and binding precedent the University of Delhi continued to enforce attendance based detention which directly violated constitutional discipline and judicial hierarchy. They further argued that the consequences of such detention were severe and irreversible as students were being forced to lose academic years and were deprived of timely graduation and career opportunities. It was also submitted that some of the students had given undertakings to abide by the decision of the inquiry committee only because they were compelled to do so in order to be considered for relief and that such undertakings could not be enforced when they were contrary to law declared by a constitutional court. The petitioners also relied on the principle that education regulations must be interpreted in a student friendly manner and that procedural rules should not override substantive rights to education and professional advancement.

On the other hand the University defended its actions by contending that attendance norms are essential for maintaining academic discipline and quality of legal education and that students were fully aware of the seventy percent attendance requirement at the time of admission. The University argued that some students had voluntarily given undertakings agreeing to abide by the outcome of internal inquiries and therefore they were estopped from challenging the consequences. It was also argued that universities have academic autonomy to prescribe and enforce attendance standards and that judicial interference in such matters would undermine institutional governance. However the University could not dispute that the Division Bench judgment in Sushant Rohilla had not been stayed or set aside and continued to be binding on all coordinate benches and subordinate authorities.

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court allowed all the writ petitions and held that once lack of attendance has been judicially held not to constitute a valid ground for detention all consequential benefits must necessarily follow. Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the ruling in Sushant Rohilla continues to operate as binding precedent since it has neither been stayed nor modified and therefore the University was bound to comply with it. The Court categorically held that students cannot be detained from appearing in examinations nor can their results be withheld nor can they be prevented from attending classes or being promoted to the next semester solely on the ground of attendance shortage. The Court further clarified that the protection extends to all academic consequences including declaration of results permission to attend classes and conferment of the LL B degree in accordance with law. The Court rejected the University’s argument regarding undertakings and held that undertakings obtained prior to the Division Bench judgment cannot be enforced if they run contrary to law laid down by a constitutional court. It was observed that no individual consent or undertaking can validate an action which is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional. The Court also noted that the objective of legal education is to nurture competent legal professionals and not to exclude students through rigid administrative measures that do not align with contemporary educational policy. Accordingly the Court directed that if any result had been kept in sealed cover the same must be declared expeditiously and in any case not later than two weeks from the date of the order. The Court thus ensured immediate restoration of academic rights of the petitioners and reaffirmed the binding nature of judicial precedents on educational institutions.