Mandatory attendance rules must be reconsidered to reduce rigidity, accommodating mental health needs while ensuring educational integrity per National Education Policy standards.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

Sr. No.

INDEX

Para No.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2-7

II.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONCERNED MAGISTRATE

8-13

III(A).

PROCEEDINGS IN THE WRIT PETITION

14-21

III(B).

PROCEEDINGS IN THE WRIT PETITION – ‘SUSHANT ROHILLA INTERVENTION’

22-36

IV.

GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEES

37-114

V.

MANDATORY ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS

115-140

VI.

SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AMICUS CURIAE

141-143

VII.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

Issue I: Specific Case on behalf of the Deceased Student

Issue II: Constitution of Grievance Redressal Committees

Issue III: Mandatory Attendance Norms for Law Courses

National Education Policy , 2020

UGC Regulations, 2003

Mandatory Attendance Requirements for Qualifications in the field of Law

144-232

VIII.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

233-247

IX.

DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEES (GRCS)

248

X.

DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO MANDATORY ATTENDANCE NORMS

249-252

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The present matter arises out of an unfortunate incident which had resulted in the loss of a young life, namely Mr. Sushant Rohilla (hereinafter “the deceased student”), on 10th August, 2016. The deceased student was pursuing the five-year B.A.LL.B. degree in one of the private law colleges in Delhi, NCR region i.e., Amity Law School (hereinafter “the concerned law school”), which was then affiliated to the Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter “GGSIPU”).

3. In respect of the said incident, a letter dated 20th August, 2016 was addressed to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, by one Mr. Raghav Sharma, who had sought help and assistance in respect of the same. Mr. Sharma was a friend of the deceased student and he had alleged that the latter was subjected to mental torture and harassment by a particular teacher of the concerned law school. The deceased student was stated to be the convener of the Debating Society and an active participant in Moot Court activities. He was also stated to be mentoring junior students in the concerned law school for moot court and debating events, and he continued to do so even after suffering from a physical injury.

4. It was stated in the said letter, that as the deceased student could not maintain 75% attendance, prescribed by GGSIPU, he was forced to repeat an academic year by the concerned law school. It was alleged in the said letter that due to continuous harassment from the faculty and the particular teacher, as also the administration, the deceased student committed suicide. The crux of the said letter was that the detention of the deceased student due to lack of attendance forced him to take this extreme step.

5. The said letter, in the form of a letter petition, prayed for conducting an enquiry into the cause of the unfortunate incident through an independent committee constituted by the Supreme Court. It was also prayed that the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the larger issue i.e., handling of mental health problems of students in Institutes of Higher Education across the country. The prayer in the said letter petition reads as under:

“10. Though there exists a report by Raghavan Committee formed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.(s) 24295 of 2006 which caters to the menace of Ragging but the tormented psychological state of students in colleges and universities due to mental harassment by the authorities and professors is still waiting for cognizance. Hence, in light of all th