Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University – Appellant
Versus
B. Vadhanan – Respondent
WA No. 49 of 2026, WA No. 364 of 2026 and WA No. 426 of 2026
Decided On : 17-06-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Nallathambi in all three writ appeals
For the Respondent(s): Mr.P.M.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan for R1, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, Standing Counsel for Bar Counsel of India for R2 (in W.A.No.49 of 2026) Mr.S.Bageerathan for R1 Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, Standing Counsel for Bar Counsel of India for R2 (in W.A.No.364 of 2026) Mr.B.M.Subash for R1 Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, Standing Counsel for Bar Counsel of India for R3 (in W.A.No.426 of 2026)
Mandatory attendance requirements in professional education are strictly regulatory matters. Judicial authorities should not intervene to provide relaxations or circumvent these policies, as doing so undermines institutional standards, professional integrity, and the fundamental principle of equality among students who adhere to established rules.
Headnote:(A) Educational Regulations - Mandatory attendance requirements - Regulatory framework mandates specific minimum attendance thresholds for professional education - Any further relaxation or judicial intervention to disregard these thresholds undermines the object of such regulations and infringes upon the domain of expert bodies. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Equality - Principles of institutional parity - Differential treatment favoring students failing to meet regulatory attendance mandates creates inequity for students who have diligently fulfilled institutional obligations. (Para 6)
(C) Educational Methodology - Instruction delivery - Physical instruction within a classroom provides essential intangible benefits including self-discipline, peer engagement, and social development that cannot be replicated by virtual or technological substitutes. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Students who failed to fulfill compulsory minimum attendance requirements filed petitions seeking permission to continue their course and appear for examinations without repeating the academic year. The lower court partially allowed these petitions, issuing directions for authorities to review existing regulations and permitting students to attend classes and write examinations despite attendance shortages. The educational institution challenged these directions through intra-court appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court held that attendance regulations are mandatory and must be strictly enforced to maintain academic integrity and professional discipline. It emphasized that matters concerning regulatory policy are within the purview of specialized expert bodies and that court intervention to waive or relax these requirements is legally unsustainable and detrimental to the educational standard of the institution.
Issues: Whether courts are authorized to grant relaxations of mandatory attendance requirements or direct governing bodies to circumvent established regulatory criteria for professional education.
Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory norms regarding minimum attendance are essential for institutional discipline; therefore, judicial interference to provide relaxations contradicts the spirit of such rules and violates the principle of equality for students who maintain compliance. Compliance with regulatory standards is a prerequisite for professional progression.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal regarding student attendance deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. strict compliance with mandatory bci attendance regulations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. significance of physical classroom engagement in legal education. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. conclusion setting aside lower court orders. (Para 9) |
Common Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the common order dated 17.12.2025 passed in W.P.Nos. 42641, 46137 and 43650 of 2025.
2. The present intra-court appeals have been instituted jointly by the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University and Dean, School of Excellence in Law (SOEL) under Clause 15 of the Letters patent. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petitions.
3. The common facts in all the writ appeals stem from an issue of attendance shortage of respondent students. The respondent students have insufficient attendance and have not fulfilled the mandatory minimum attendance percentage. Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules mandates minimum attendance requirement, failing which the student concerned shall not be allowed to take the end semester test. Hence, writ petitions were filed by the respondent students with prayers, which include permission to take up their semester exams and reconsideration of decision to re-do the said academic year. The learned Single Judge through common order dated
17.12.2025 had partly allowed the writ petitions with the following directions:
“…
40. In view thereof, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed on the following terms:
(i) The Bar Council of India, as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, shall undertake the exercise of re-evaluation/re-visit of Rules 10 and 12 of the Rules of Legal Education.
(ii) The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University shall reconsider its present policy of directing students to redo the course, thereby mandating a one year gap for students, and explore alternative options as implemented by several other universities; (iii) The respondents shall permit the petitioners/students to continue the Course to attend VIII semester and write the VIII semester examinations.
(iv) As far as the VII semester is concerned, since they have put in partial attendance of 46%, 41% and 37% respectively, they can be given an opportunity during the vacation after the VIII semester in May, 2026 and June, 2026 to put in balance mandatory attendance in the flexible forms and modes as discussed supra and their internal assessment shall be completed. Thereafter, they can write their end semester examinations of the VII semester as and when the semester examinations are scheduled along with the IX semester examinations so that the career progression is not affected. It is for the University to take a decision in respect of the two writ petitioners Vathanan and Mrithula Shre whether to mandate them to re-write the examination after the completion of the attendance and internal assessment or to publish the results of the examinations already written pursuant to the interim order of this Court.
(v) The compliance of the above directions need not result in additional burden on the lecturers. Depending on their willingness, if only anyone of them are available or by availing services of the teachers, alternatively, the above can be done.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4. It is pertinent to note that Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules mandate compulsory 70% attendance and with sufficient cause, a further 5% can be condoned, bringing it down to 65%, but not any further. So the Rules are clear and any further relaxation would defeat the object of the Rule itself.
5. In Paragraph. No.31 of the learned Single Judges order, reference has been made to different teaching methods and the need to revisit Rules 10 and 12. This exercise can be undertaken by the expert bodies like Bar Council of India, since various other factors need to be c
