Back
Delay In Submitting Medical Certificate Not Grounds To Reject Genuine Illness Claim:
The has held that a student’s genuine illness claim cannot be rejected merely because a medical certificate was submitted late, directing to allow a B.Com LLB student with 63.76% attendance to clear her sixth semester and proceed to subsequent semesters. Justice Jay Sengupta observed that when the certificate comes from an independent medical professional, its existence itself should ordinarily suffice, and procedural delays cannot be treated as fatal.
Background of the Case
Rhine Ghosh, a student of the B.Com LLB (Hons.) course at , was debarred from appearing in the sixth semester examinations scheduled to start on , because her attendance stood at 63.76%—below the 65% threshold prescribed under the University’s attendance regulations for . The University maintained that students with attendance between 65% and 74% could seek upon timely submission of leave applications and medical certificates, and that those falling below 65% were ineligible for any relaxation.
Ghosh contended that her low attendance was the result of several genuine hardships: she was diagnosed with chickenpox on , and advised 14 days of isolation; she was also suffering from multiple cysts in both ovaries; and her father had died in , placing sudden financial and emotional strain on her family. She argued that the University had historically been liberal in applying the attendance rules, and that other students with comparable or lower attendance had been allowed to proceed after .
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the University’s regulations, read together, envisage a two-step process: first, of excusable absence is to be applied, and only then is the final attendance percentage calculated. According to this interpretation, even a student below 65% could receive if the excused days brought the aggregate above the threshold. Ghosh pointed to the example of another student, Bhavini Sinha, who had 55.76% attendance but was allowed for participation in extra-curricular activities. The petitioner also contended that the attendance view on the student portal reflected a “live” that was applied continuously throughout the semester, making it impossible to know one’s true standing until the end.
The counsel further argued that the University had ignored the medical certificate for chickenpox—submitted on , just before the exams—solely because it was not filed within the three-day window required under . This, he submitted, violated , as other students with attendance between 65% and 74% were allowed to appear with mere payment of a fee, without any insistence on timely medical documentation.
University’s Stand
The respondent University, represented by senior counsel, contended that the attendance regulations were statutory in nature and had been upheld in earlier decisions, including . It argued that the petitioner’s attendance of 63.76% was below the 65% floor for , placing her entirely outside the zone of consideration. Regarding the medical certificate, the University pointed out that it had been submitted over three months after the illness, not within 15 days of rejoining classes as required. The University also noted that attendance records showed the petitioner had actually attended 26 out of 42 classes during the claimed isolation period, raising doubts about the genuineness of her illness.
As for the father’s death, the University dismissed it as a “historical effect,” stating that it occurred in and could not justify absenteeism in 2024. It further argued that the petitioner had not challenged the of the regulations, and that the court could not direct the University to act contrary to its own rules.
Legal Analysis by the Court
Justice Sengupta began by acknowledging the importance of attendance discipline in a five-year integrated law course, quoting the Division Bench in to emphasise that legal education must be taken seriously. However, he drew a sharp distinction between absence due to extra-curricular activities and absence due to genuine illness.
“While the issue of prior permission… may be subjected to greater scrutiny and distrust by an affected party, thereby requiring stricter compliance, the existence of a medical certificate issued by an independent medical professional would be more sacrosanct… Hence, a delay on the part of a student afflicted by illness in either making a leave application or providing a medical certificate beyond time cannot be treated as fatal. The furnishing of the medical certificate itself should be sufficient compliance of the requirement stipulated.”
The Court also examined the University’s handling of attendance records, noting that while some documentation was incomplete, there was . It rejected the petitioner’s allegations of widespread discrimination, stating that no specific instances of favouritism had been proved.
"Historical Effect" Remark Draws Court’s Ire
One of the most striking observations in the judgment concerned the University’s characterisation of the petitioner’s father’s death. Justice Sengupta wrote:
“It would be rather cruel to term it as a historical fact. … It is quite possible that one may fairly choose not to be merciful. But, there is no justification in acting with such insensitivity and spite.”
He noted that the petitioner had to take up part-time acting assignments due to financial strain after her father’s death, and suggested the University could have fairly treated such work as an extra-curricular activity eligible for adjustment.
The Verdict: Student Allowed to Proceed
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be debarred from clearing the sixth semester or moving to the next on grounds of inadequate attendance. All withheld examination results for the sixth and subsequent semesters are to be published promptly, and answer scripts that remain unevaluated must be evaluated without delay. Upon completion of the course, the student is entitled to receive all certificates, mark sheets, and relevant documents.
The University’s subsequent prayer for a stay of the order was rejected.
Justice Sengupta concluded by requesting the University to scrupulously follow its own regulations regarding attendance for extra-curricular activities and to maintain complete records for a period of at least seven years.
