Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 50693
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|WA No. 426 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.Thiyagarajan, M.Nallathambi
For the Respondents: P.M.Subramanian, Manoj Sreevalsan, S.R.Raghunathan, S.Bageerathan, B.M.Subash
Mandatory minimum attendance requirements prescribed by the Bar Council of India Rules are strict and cannot be relaxed by courts in the absence of explicit regulatory provisions to ensure academic integrity and equality among students.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a lower court order concerning students with insufficient attendance for legal education. The court examined the mandatory attendance requirements stipulated by the rules regulating the legal profession. It determined that strict adherence to these rules is necessary to maintain standards and uphold equality among students. The core issues addressed were whether mandatory attendance thresholds could be relaxed for students with attendance shortages and whether alternative modes of instruction could substitute for physical classrooms. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that in the absence of revised regulatory provisions, statutory requirements must be strictly enforced to avoid arbitrary treatment and to preserve the integrity of legal education. In conclusion, the court set aside the lower court order and allowed the appeals, affirming the necessity of complying with established attendance mandates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court summarizes the procedural history and the underlying dispute regarding attendance shortages against bar council of india rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. strict adherence to mandatory attendance rules is required as expert bodies are responsible for any systemic transformation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal education requires physical attendance to cultivate discipline, integrity, and social commitment that cannot be replaced by online tools. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
(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 re
