A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment arises from the tragic suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a five-year B.A.LL.B. student of Amity Law School on 10 August 2016, and the subsequent writ proceedings transferred to the Delhi High Court to examine systemic failings in higher education institutions that may aggravate student distress.

The Court treated the matter both as a petition arising from an individual tragedy and as a vehicle to address two structural questions:

(i) the constitution, composition and functioning of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) in institutions of higher education; and

(ii) the propriety of rigid mandatory physical attendance norms, particularly in legal education.

After recounting criminal investigations (including a closure accepted by the learned ACJM) and an out-of-court settlement between the family and the law school, the Court declined to reopen the criminal findings but proceeded to deliver detailed, reform-oriented directions. Key holdings: GRCs must exist in all institutions in terms of UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 with strengthened student representation (student nominees to constitute at least 50% of members and to be full members, not mere “special invitees”); educational institutions must ensure counsellors/therapists are regularly consulted and available; the Bar Council of India (BCI) must re-evaluate mandatory attendance rules for the 3-year and 5-year LL.B. courses and credit experiential learning (moot courts, internships, seminars) towards attendance/credit; and administrative measures that punishingly debar students from examinations purely on attendance grounds must be replaced with proportionate, non-stigmatizing alternatives. The Court thus uses a single tragedy to issue sectoral reforms aimed at better mental-health safeguards and curricular flexibility.

Keywords: Grievance Redressal Committee, mandatory attendance, legal education rules, mental health, Bar Council of India, NEP 2020.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petition originated from a letter dated 20 August 2016 sent to the Chief Justice of India alleging harassment of Sushant Rohilla by a faculty member and detention from examinations due to shortfall in attendance. The matter was registered and transferred from the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court to examine both the particular factual matrix and broader systemic reforms in higher education. Parallel criminal proceedings (FIR No. 153/2017 under Section 306 IPC) were investigated by Delhi Police and later by the Crime Branch, which filed a closure report.

The learned ACJM accepted the closure on 3 October 2024 finding no material to make out abetment to suicide; subsequently the deceased’s family and the law school recorded an out-of-court settlement (14 Nov. 2024) and the family agreed not to pursue criminal protest petitions further. Despite the closure of the individual factual strand, the Court continued the public-interest exercise labelled the “Sushant Rohilla Intervention” to remedy systemic lacunae concerning GRCs, counselling, internships and mandatory attendance norms across universities and professional regulatory bodies (notably the BCI).

The Court engaged a wide stakeholder consultation process, issued multiple interim directions and ultimately framed binding directions to remedy institutional deficits identified across affidavits from universities, IITs, AIIMS, NLU, BCI and UGC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Sushant Rohilla, a law student active in moot and debating activities and a mentor to juniors, allegedly fell short of attendance thresholds prescribed by his affiliating university (GGSIPU) and the then-applicable regulatory practice (stated as 75% in some documents). His non-fulfilment of attendance requirements led to debarment from the 6th semester exams. Friends and a correspondent alleged harassment by a particular faculty member and the administration, and contended that detention and perceived harassment pushed him to suicide.

The family filed complaints and the sister pressed criminal charges, resulting in an FIR and investigation. The Crime Branch concluded absence of material to show instigation or mens rea by faculty or administration and filed a closure report which the ACJM accepted after detailed findings. Subsequent to prolonged litigation, the family and the law school entered into settlement. Separately, the High Court pursued systemic reform given similar incidents elsewhere and solicited returns from regulatory bodies and institutions about GRCs, counselling availability, internship facilitation and attendance policies.

Affidavits revealed heterogeneity in institutional practice some universities had robust wellness centres and student participation in GRCs while others lacked adequate representation or counselling access. The BCI defended strict attendance on professional-standards grounds but admitted practical difficulties and was directed to reconsider norms; UGC Regulations 2023 and NEP 2020 informed the Court’s policy orientation towards flexibility.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the closure of criminal proceedings and the out-of-court settlement preclude the High Court from issuing systemic directions in public interest arising from the same facts?

ii. What minimum composition, role and powers should Grievance Redressal Committees possess to effectively address student grievances including mental-health concerns?

iii. Whether mandatory physical attendance norms (as encapsulated in Legal Education Rules, 2008, Rule 12) for LL.B. courses are reasonable in light of NEP 2020 and modern teaching modes, and if not, what remedial framework should replace punitive debarment from exams?

iv. What remedial measures should regulatory bodies (BCI, UGC) and institutions implement to ensure internships, counselling and alternative credit mechanisms are accessible to vulnerable students?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The intervenor (sister/family) pressed for an independent inquiry and systemic reforms arguing that detention for attendance without appropriate safeguards and lack of effective grievance mechanisms contributed to mental distress. Counsel urged that institutions must have accessible counsellors, discreet consultation rooms, and proactive GRCs with meaningful student participation. It was submitted that professional regulators must enable internships and non-classroom learning to count towards attendance/credit to avoid penalization of students engaged in legitimate extracurricular/experiential learning.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The Bar Council of India defended attendance norms as essential for professional competence, invoking its rule-making power under Section 49(1)(d) Advocates Act, 1961 and the Legal Education Rules, 2008 (Rule 12). BCI contended that institutional GRCs and counselling are preferable safeguards to dilution of attendance standards; it cited precedent recognising the regulator’s prerogative to prescribe standards. Universities and institutions set out varied practices some showing strong wellness infrastructure; others lagging and generally submitted that the Court should frame proportionate directives rather than micro-manage academic rules.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Court first acknowledged limits of its jurisdiction to re-open the criminal closure (the ACJM’s order and the family’s settlement foreclosed further orders in respect of the individual case) but proceeded with comprehensive policy directions to prevent recurrence. On GRCs, relying on UGC Regulations, 2023, the Court held that every institution must constitute GRCs, and directed UGC to consider amendments so that students constitute at least 50% of GRC membership and be full members (not mere special invitees). Counsellors and therapists must be regularly consulted; while amendments are pending, each GRC must have at least 2–3 student nominees and adequate counselling panels maintained. Institutions must publish the GRC constitution and grievance procedure conspicuously.

On attendance, the Court critically reviewed the role of NEP 2020 and UGC Regulations emphasizing flexibility; it concluded that absolute debarment for attendance shortfall (Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008) is arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of NEP and UGC flexibility. The Court directed BCI to re-evaluate baseline attendance for 3-year and 5-year LL.B. programmes, to incorporate credits for moot courts, internships, seminars and court attendance, and to adopt ameliorative measures: permit examinations despite attendance shortfall (but allow modest grade reduction e.g., maximum 5% marks or 0.33% CGPA reduction), avoid withholding promotion for attendance reasons, and explore graded detention instead of wholesale debarring. The Court explicitly disallowed the BCI Circular BCI:D:5186/2024 mandating biometric/CCTV enforcement. The BCI and State Bar Councils were ordered to publish city-wise internship lists and to facilitate placements for economically weaker students within three months.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative legal ratio is policy-centric:

(1) where systemic institutional rules (attendance, grievance mechanisms) affect students’ right to life and dignity, judicial intervention under writ jurisdiction is appropriate to mandate minimum protective architecture;

(2) rigid attendance rules that mechanically debar students from examinations without proportional safeguards are unreasonable;

(3) student participation in GRCs is essential for effective grievance resolution and mental-health protection; and

(4) regulatory authorities retain primary rule-making power but must re-examine standards in light of NEP 2020 and evidentiary material showing that experiential learning merits academic credit.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed (obiter) that mere abusive language by a faculty member does not by itself constitute abetment to suicide absent mens rea or proximate instigation cautioning parties about causal proof in criminal law while affirming the need for institutional remedies. It also noted comparative practices abroad and urged pedagogy reform to make classroom learning engaging so attendance becomes voluntary rather than coerced. The Court highlighted proxy attendance and practical impediments (commute, financial distress) as reasons to avoid punitive attendance enforcement.

c. GUIDELINES

1. All colleges/universities must have GRCs per UGC Regulations, 2023 with at least 2–3 student nominees immediately; UGC to consult on amending regs to make students at least 50% of members.

2. GRCs must maintain a panel of counsellors/therapists and consult them regularly; institutions must provide discreet counselling infrastructure.

3. BCI to re-evaluate attendance norms for 3/5 year LL.B., credit moot courts, internships and practical activities, and ensure alternatives to debarment (exams allowed with minor grade penalty; no withholding of promotion solely for attendance).

4. BCI/State Bar Councils to publish internship databases and ensure access for disadvantaged students within three months.

5. Biometric/CCTV mandatory scheme (BCI:D:5186/2024) shall not be given effect to.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is a careful blend of deference to institutional and regulatory autonomy and robust judicially-directed policymaking where student welfare and life are implicated. By declining to disturb criminal closure yet issuing sectoral directives, the Court preserves finality for the individual case while converting its tragedy into universal preventive measures. The directions are pragmatic: they strengthen participatory grievance processes, require mental-health infrastructure, and sensibly push for curricular recognition of experiential learning.

The requirement that the BCI re-examine attendance norms including concrete mitigations (allowing exams, limited grade adjustment) balances professional standards with compassion for students’ vulnerabilities. For administrators and regulators, the judgment mandates transparency (publication of GRCs, internship lists), inclusivity (student majority on GRCs) and resiliency (therapist panels). For future litigants, the ruling underscores that courts can and will fashion structural remedies where systemic rules plausibly endanger student wellbeing. Implementation will require diligent rule-making by UGC/BCI and monitoring to ensure that form does not eclipse function i.e., mere committees without active engagement will not suffice.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Vandana Kandari v. University of Delhi, LPA 662/2010 (cited in judgment).
ii. Komal Jain v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 8534/2008 (cited).
iii. S. N. Singh v. University of Delhi (S.N. Singh I & II) (cited).
iv. Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors., (1989) AIR(SC) 1541 (cited).

b. Important Statutes / Instruments Referred
i. Advocates Act, 1961 (Section 49(1)(d) re: BCI rule-making).
ii. Legal Education Rules, 2008 (Rule 12 — attendance).
iii. UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023.
iv. National Education Policy, 2020 (policy context).