Missed Classes, Not Missed Opportunity: Kerala HC Saves Law Students' Semester

In a relief to nine law students facing debarment from second-semester exams due to attendance shortages, the Kerala High Court has directed Mahatma Gandhi University to publish their results. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that St. Dominic's College of Law's failure to conduct the mandatory 90 working days prejudiced the students , regularizing their provisional permission to appear for exams granted earlier by the court.

From Attendance Alerts to Courtroom Battle

The petitioners—young aspiring lawyers aged 19 to 27 from across Kerala, including Vaibhav Y Kini, Sila Mary Babu, and others—were enrolled in the 3-year Unitary LLB and 5-year Integrated LLB (Hons) courses at St. Dominic's College of Law, Kanjirappally, affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU).

The trouble began when some students were barred from exams for falling short on attendance. While petitioners 4-6 secured condonation directly from the university, and 7 and 9 had sufficient attendance, the rest were within condonable limits but still denied entry. The college had logged only 71 working days for the second semester (June 2 to September 29, 2025), far below the university's required 90 days and Bar Council of India (BCI) norms for lectures, tutorials, moot courts, and seminars.

Facing irreversible academic loss, the students filed Writ Petition (C) No. 37092 of 2025. On October 9, 2025, the court issued an interim order allowing provisional payment of exam fees and appearance, subject to final adjudication.

Students' Cry: Denied Chance to Catch Up

The petitioners argued that the college's truncated schedule robbed them of opportunities to improve attendance. Citing Exhibit P4 and P5 (attendance records) and P6 (academic schedule), they highlighted only 71 days against the mandatory 90. They invoked the 2015 precedent Satheesh Kumar N. v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2015 (4) KHC 932], which mandates 90 working days and minimum instructional hours before exams. Without these, students couldn't meet even condonable limits (typically 75% attendance).

News reports echoed this, noting the college's lapse left students "deprived of a chance to make up for the shortage," as Justice Thomas observed.

University's Stand: Rules Are Rules

MGU, its Vice-Chancellor, Controller of Examinations, the college, and BCI defended the attendance policy. The university emphasized regulations (Exhibits P1, P2) requiring minimum attendance, with condonation as an exception. They argued exams followed the official calendar (Exhibit P7) and fee notifications (P8), and shortages were the students' responsibility.

The college's notice (P9) had already barred defaulters, and a representation to the VC (P10) was rejected, aligning with BCI's Legal Education Rules 2008 (P3).

Decoding the Verdict: Institutional Duty Over Strict Compliance

Justice Thomas dissected the core issue: the college's omission to fulfill minimum hours breached its duty . Drawing from Satheesh Kumar N. , he noted exams can't precede requisite classes. "Had the college carried out the minimum number of hours and working days, there was every chance for the students to make up for the shortage," the judgment stated.

For petitioners 1-3 who wrote exams provisionally, relief was straightforward. Extending equity, the court held all petitioners prejudiced similarly, warranting regularization.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The college had failed to conduct the minimum number of hours before scheduling the examination, which it was bound to do."

"Petitioners have been prejudiced on account of the omission of the college to conduct the minimum number of working days."

"Had the college carried out the minimum number of hours and working days, there was every chance for the students to make up for the shortage in attendance and even achieve the minimum percentage of attendance or at least fall within the condonable limit."

"The order permitting them to write the examination must be made absolute."

These quotes underscore the court's focus on substantive fairness over procedural rigidity.

Results Published: A Precedent for Future Semesters?

The writ stands allowed: Provisional exam permissions are regularized , and results must be published. No costs awarded.

This March 12, 2026, ruling (2026:KER:22618) sets a cautionary note for institutions: Skimping on working days risks student careers. For MGU affiliates and beyond, it reinforces that regulatory lapses can't penalize diligent pupils. Aspiring lawyers can now breathe easy, their semester salvaged by judicial intervention.