In a groundbreaking judgment that could reshape India's educational landscape, the Delhi High Court has delivered a powerful verdict on student attendance requirements, sparked by the tragic suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla. The court's ruling fundamentally challenges traditional educational norms by declaring that attendance cannot be a mandatory prerequisite for examination eligibility.
The Tragic Case That Sparked Change
The legal journey began in 2016 when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance following the heartbreaking suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who was reportedly barred from taking his semester examinations due to insufficient attendance. What started as a response to individual tragedy evolved into a comprehensive judicial examination of the rigid structures permeating higher education in India.
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma delivered their transformative judgment on November 3, 2025. Through extensive consultations with the Bar Council of India, University Grants Commission, and Ministry of Education, the court transformed personal anguish into systemic reform, affirming that law guided by compassion can become an instrument of healing.
Redefining Educational Participation
The judgment acknowledges what many educational institutions have been slow to accept: education has fundamentally changed. The court noted that education is no longer confined to classrooms or textbooks and now includes practical and experiential learning through hybrid classrooms, research-based approaches, and global networks.
By prohibiting universities from preventing students from taking examinations solely due to low attendance, and directing the Ministry of Education to review existing norms, the court dismantled a system that often rewarded compliance over genuine curiosity. The core principle is simple yet revolutionary: education should thrive in freedom, not fear.
Creating a Humane Learning Compact
The judgment extends beyond procedural changes to articulate a new ethic of empathy in educational governance. The court emphasized that attendance should be encouraged through engagement rather than enforced through punishment. Universities have been directed to strengthen grievance redressal mechanisms and counseling systems, placing mental health at the center of campus life.
This shift transforms education from regulation to relationship-building, recognizing that a classroom is not merely a site for instruction but a community built on trust and dialogue. The ruling establishes that with freedom comes responsibility, requiring students, teachers, and institutions to collectively make this freedom meaningful.
Addressing the Teacher's Perspective
While the court's empathy for students is significant, the judgment also highlights the often-unseen challenges facing educators. Teaching has traditionally been an act of faith sustained by student engagement, and the move away from compulsory attendance requires teachers to reinvent their approach.
The court's decision asks educators to transition from monitoring compliance to mentoring curiosity, and from enforcing discipline to facilitating critical thought. Universities must support this transition by providing training in technology, inclusive pedagogy, and innovative teaching methods. The legal framework has created space for freedom, but institutions must build structures that enable both teachers and students to benefit from this freedom.
The judgment indirectly but clearly affirms that teachers remain indispensable in an era of artificial intelligence and digital abundance. While technology can deliver information, it cannot provide interpretation, build judgment, or guide ethical application. A teacher's value lies not in transmitting facts but in shaping understanding and nurturing empathy.
Mutual Accountability in Education
The Delhi High Court's ruling ultimately establishes a framework of mutual accountability. It liberates students from unnecessary rigidity while reinforcing their responsibility toward learning. The judgment envisions education as a partnership built on trust and meaningful engagement.
By humanizing attendance requirements, the court affirms that learning transcends physical presence alone. True education involves intellectual and emotional participation, where teachers find renewed purpose through engaged students, and students rediscover respect through guided learning. The court's concept of presence serves as a powerful reminder that education, like justice, must rest on empathy, making classrooms places where every voice matters and teachers continue as custodians of collective wisdom.
