Delhi High Court Issues Key Order In Law Student Sushant Rohilla Suicide Case

The Delhi High Court delivered a crucial judgment in the Sushant Rohilla suicide case, declaring that no law student can be prevented from taking examinations due to insufficient attendance.

The Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Mahajan, directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to revise its mandatory attendance norms to make them more student-friendly and considerate of genuine circumstances.

The ruling stems from a suo motu case linked to the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a student at Amity Law School, Delhi, who took his own life in August 2016.

His friend wrote a letter to the then Chief Justice of India, alleging that college authorities and faculty members harassed Rohilla for failing to maintain the required attendance percentage.

The letter stated that the institution compelled Rohilla to repeat an entire academic year due to low attendance, pushing him into deep distress.

The Supreme Court had taken cognisance of the letter and, on 6 March 2017, transferred the matter to the Delhi High Court for further hearing.

Court Proceedings and Findings

During the hearing, the BCI’s counsel submitted documents related to the composition of the Legal Education Committee and attendance norms followed by international universities.

The Centre informed the Court that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had, in response to an earlier court order, directed all higher education institutions to immediately establish Student Grievance Redressal Committees as per the UGC (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2023.

The Bench appreciated this step but emphasised that attendance norms in professional education must align with students’ mental and emotional well-being. It noted that overemphasis on attendance often leads to stress and isolation, which can have tragic consequences.

Amity Law School representatives stated that they had duly informed Sushant Rohilla’s parents about his poor attendance and denied any responsibility for his death.

The Court, however, directed the counsel to seek instructions on whether the university would consider granting an ex gratia payment to the bereaved family as a gesture of empathy.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, acting as amicus curiae, observed that suicides among students in academic institutions have become an alarming issue. He stressed that institutions must balance disciplinary norms with compassion and counselling mechanisms.

Concluding the hearing, the High Court directed the BCI to amend its attendance regulations to make them more flexible and humane. It also closed the suo motu proceedings initiated in 2016, noting that the issue had served its purpose by sparking a necessary reform in legal education.

The judgment stands as a reminder of the importance of empathy and reform in academic governance, ensuring that no student faces undue pressure for reasons beyond academic merit.

Also Read: Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Stray Dog Menace; Seeks Action Report From Chief Secretaries