Lessons from the Sushant Rohilla Case for Law Students
Attendance requirements have long been a point of conflict between students and academic institutions across India. But the issue received national attention after the tragic death of law student Sushant Rohilla, leading to widespread debate on the rigidity of attendance rules and the responsibility of educational institutions toward students.
Years later, the Supreme Court’s recent observations in 2025 have revived this conversation and clarified how attendance policies must operate under constitutional values, fairness, and institutional accountability.
This article analyses the legal context, the Supreme Court’s commentary, the impact of the case, and the roadmap for educational reforms — written especially for law students.
1. Background: Who Was Sushant Rohilla?
Sushant Rohilla was a third-year law student at Amity Law School, Delhi, affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU).
In August 2016, at just 20 years old, he died by suicide.
His friends and classmates alleged that:
- He was denied permission to sit for exams due to low attendance.
- His health condition and mobility issues were ignored.
- He was subjected to extreme academic pressure and mental distress.
The incident sparked:
- Nationwide student protests
- Investigations by the Bar Council of India
- Parliamentary debates on mental health
- A re-examination of attendance policies
The case became a symbol of the clash between rigid academic rules and student welfare.
2. The Attendance Issue: Problems Exposed by the Case
The Sushant Rohilla incident brought forth deep institutional problems:
2.1 Rigid Attendance Regulations
Most law colleges enforce 75%–80% mandatory attendance under Bar Council of India (BCI) rules.
But little flexibility existed for:
- Medical emergencies
- Disabilities
- Mental health conditions
- Family crises
2.2 Lack of Natural Justice
Students often face:
- No opportunity to be heard
- Arbitrary application of rules
- No clear grievance redressal mechanism
- No transparency in attendance records
2.3 Mental Health Negligence
Institutions rarely consider:
- Stress
- Anxiety
- Depression
- Chronic illness
This institutional vacuum became central to Supreme Court discussions later.
3. Supreme Court’s 2025 Observations on Attendance Rules
In 2025, while hearing a batch of petitions relating to student attendance, academic fairness, and the broader context of the Sushant Rohilla case, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made landmark observations.
The Supreme Court held:
3.1 Attendance Rules Must Be Enforced With Sensitivity
Attendance cannot become:
- A punishment
- A tool of harassment
- A barrier for students with health or psychological issues
The Court emphasized the duty of institutions to prioritize welfare over mechanical rule-application.
3.2 Principles of Natural Justice Apply to Students
Before debarring a student from examination:
- A written notice must be given
- The student’s explanation must be considered
- A speaking order must be issued
Education cannot operate in a constitutional vacuum.
3.3 Flexibility Is Not a Favour — It Is a Legal Requirement
The Court held that institutions must create:
- Medical relaxation rules
- Disability accommodations
- Mental-health-based exceptions
Rigid enforcement without exceptions violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
3.4 Colleges Have a Duty of Care
Institutions are public-facing bodies, and thus:
- They owe students a duty of well-being
- They must prevent hostile academic environments
- They must provide counselling and support
The Court stressed that the tragedy of Sushant must never repeat.
3.5 Mandatory Attendance Cannot Override Right to Education
The Bench noted:
“Attendance rules cannot undermine the very purpose of education: learning, growth, and well-being.”
4. What the Judgment Means for Law Students
4.1 More Transparent Attendance Policies
Colleges must now:
- Publish attendance rules clearly
- Offer regular updates
- Provide relaxation mechanisms
4.2 Protection Against Arbitrary Debarring
Students cannot be debarred from exams without:
- Hearing
- Recorded reasons
- An appeal process
4.3 Improved Mental Health Framework
Institutions should now:
- Appoint counsellors
- Create internal complaints committees
- Track student well-being
4.4 Stronger Legal Remedies for Students
Students can file:
- Writ petitions
- Complaints with BCI, UGC
- RTIs for attendance records
4.5 Academic Decisions Must Be Reasonable and Proportionate
Punishing a student for:
- Long-term illness
- Physical disability
- Trauma
is unconstitutional.
5. Roadmap for Institutions After This Judgment
5.1 Implement Attendance Relaxation Policies
Based on:
- Medical proof
- Mental health verification
- Special circumstances
5.2 Establish Grievance Committees
Including:
- External experts
- Mental health professionals
- Student representatives
5.3 Digitize Attendance
To avoid:
- Manipulation
- Discrepancies
- Arbitrary penalties
5.4 Promote Student–Faculty Dialogue
Routine academic counselling must be mandatory.
6. Why This Judgment Is a Landmark for Legal Education
The Sushant Rohilla case brought to light the institutional shortcomings of legal education in India.
The 2025 Supreme Court observations ensure:
- A safer campus environment
- A balance between academic discipline and compassion
- Recognition of student mental health
- Accountability of law colleges
For future lawyers, this judgment strengthens the idea that law is not just about rules, but about justice.
7. Conclusion: A Turning Point in Student Rights Jurisprudence
The Sushant Rohilla case is more than a tragedy — it is a reminder that rigid systems without empathy can cost lives.
The Supreme Court’s latest attendance-related observations reaffirm:
- Compassion
- Fairness
- Proportionality
- Constitutional values
This judgment ensures that no student is pushed to despair by mechanical attendance rules again.
For law students, it offers:
- Protection
- Transparency
- Dignity
- Hope
- A safer academic future
