Bombay High Court Turns Away PIL on Law College Attendance Rules for Want of Concrete Details

In a succinct order that underscores the evidentiary threshold for public interest litigations, the Bombay High Court has declined to direct the University of Mumbai to enforce the mandatory 75% attendance norm in its affiliated law colleges. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik disposed of the petition after finding it devoid of any identifiable colleges or students allegedly allowed to bypass the rule.

A Faculty Member’s Quest for Uniform Compliance

Sharmila w/o Sandesh Ghuge, a full-time lecturer at Jitendra Chauhan College of Law, approached the court claiming that several law colleges routinely permit students with deficient attendance to sit for examinations. Framed as a public interest litigation, the plea sought a judicial direction compelling the University of Mumbai to implement the attendance requirement strictly in line with Bar Council of India regulations and university rules.

The petitioner asserted that she had already initiated steps under the Right to Information Act to gather supporting data, yet the High Court observed that the pending RTI query had not yielded any usable particulars at the time of filing.

Why the Petition Fell Short

The bench noted that the petitioner, while employed at one of the very institutions she alluded to, failed to name even a single student or college in her own backyard. “The petitioner has neither given any particulars of colleges nor students, who are being allowed to appear in the examination without following the mandatory 75% attendance requirement,” the judges recorded.

Such generalised allegations, the court held, could not form the basis for issuing a sweeping directive to the university. The absence of concrete instances left the petition hanging between conjecture and actionable grievance.

No Bar on Future Action, But Particulars Are Essential

Rather than closing the door entirely, the bench expressly reserved liberty for the petitioner to return with a fresh petition or PIL once better material is available. This measured approach balances the need for institutional accountability in legal education with the procedural discipline expected in writ proceedings.

The order signals to prospective litigants that while the court remains open to genuine grievances concerning professional education standards, it will not entertain exploratory petitions that essentially outsource the task of fact-finding to the judiciary itself.

Key Observations from the Bench

Several passages from the order capture the court’s reasoning with clarity:

> “From the perusal of the PIL we find that the petitioner has neither given any particulars of colleges nor students, who are being allowed to appear in the examination without following the mandatory 75% attendance requirement by law colleges.”

> “In the absence of any material particulars and in the absence of name of colleges or the students who are appearing in the examination without compliance with the aforesaid mandatory requirement, we are not inclined to entertain the PIL.”

> “However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a writ petition/PIL afresh after obtaining better particulars.”

Implications for Legal Education Oversight

The decision does not address the merits of the 75% attendance rule itself; instead, it spotlights the procedural gatekeeping role played by courts when petitioners seek structural reforms without first marshaling specific instances of non-compliance. For universities and the Bar Council alike, the ruling serves as a reminder that enforcement actions may still be challenged or triggered, provided future litigants come armed with verifiable data rather than broad-brush assertions.

By keeping the door slightly ajar, the Bombay High Court has preserved space for informed intervention while refusing to let unparticularised claims drive judicial oversight of examination processes across Mumbai’s law colleges.