Authored By: Sh. Khurshid Alam, Law Centre 2, Faculty of Law, Delhi University, India, Research Writer at Law Audience®,
Edited By: Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate, Himachal, Punjab & Haryana and Founder at Law Audience.
Case Background:
Law student Sushant Rohilla of Amity Law School, Delhi (affiliated to IP University) died by suicide on 10 August 2016. Rohilla, a third-year BA LLB student, learned that he would be barred from sitting his annual exams for the semester due to an attendance shortfall. Amity Law School required 75% attendance to take exams, but Rohilla’s attendance was reported to be only about 29–43%[1][2]. Fellow students and his family allege that Rohilla was repeatedly harassed by faculty over this issue and that his pleas – including a written appeal citing a severe foot injury – were ignored[1][3]. In the days after his death, about 100–200 students protested on campus demanding action against two teachers and the director, accusing them of bullying and “callous” behaviour[1][4]. Rohilla’s uncle publicly blamed “the callous and arbitrary system of Amity University” for the tragedy[5][3].
Soon after the suicide, Rohilla’s family and friends urged legal action. On 20 August 2016 a friend of Rohilla sent a letter to the Chief Justice of India, alleging continuous mental harassment over attendance issues[6][3]. The Supreme Court treated this as a suo motu writ petition on 5 September 2016, appointing Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan as amicus curiae, and in March 2017 transferred the case to the Delhi High Court for adjudication on the merits[7].
Criminal Proceedings:
Separately, on 10 August 2017 (one year after his death) Rohilla’s sister filed a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), naming Amity Law School officials in Patiala House Court[8]. The Delhi Police’s Crime Branch later investigated and concluded there was no evidence of deliberate abetment. A closure report was filed on 8 January 2018, stating the faculty’s actions (though “distressing”) did not legally constitute abetment[9].
The family challenged this by filing a protest petition. In October 2024 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the closure report but acknowledged “additional material” in the protest petition. The Magistrate then directed that the protest petition be treated as a fresh complaint, effectively keeping the case alive[10]. As of that date, the criminal proceedings remained pending.
Writ Petition (Delhi HC) – “Court on Its Own Motion”:
In March 2017 the Delhi High Court issued notice in the writ petition and allowed Rohilla’s sister to intervene[11]. The Court focused on two parallel issues:
(1) the individual tragedy and accountability of the college, and
(2) systemic reforms in higher education to prevent such cases[12].
Over several years the Court pursued both tracks. By late 2024 the parties agreed to an out-of-court settlement: Rohilla’s family withdrew criminal charges in exchange for the college’s payment of ex-gratia compensation[13]. The Delhi HC then dropped the
individual faculty members from the case and retained Amity Law School as a party only to implement wider reforms[14]. In other words, the personal dispute was resolved, but the Court continued the suo motu petition as a public interest case aimed at fixing broader problems in legal education and student welfare[13].
Court Findings: Grievance Redressal, Attendance and Mental Health
In its landmark 3 November 2025 judgment, the Delhi High Court identified key institutional failings and issued reforms in three main areas:
- grievance redressal,
- attendance norms, and
- mental health infrastructure.
The bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma held that rigid attendance rules and weak student support can violate a student’s rights under Articles 21 and 14 (right to life and equality) of the Constitution[15][16].
- Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs): The Court emphasized that universities must create effective internal complaint mechanisms. All higher education institutes (including law schools) were ordered to form Grievance Redressal Committees as per UGC regulations[17][18]. Crucially, these GRCs must include substantial student representation (at least 50% members) and diversity[18][19]. The Court also mandated that each GRC have counselors or mental-health professionals on call, so that students’ emotional and academic concerns can be addressed sensitively[18][19]. In short, institutions must institutionalize empathy: students should not be treated as passive bystanders in grievances, but as empowered participants with a real voice[18][19].
- Mandatory Attendance Norms: A major part of the judgment struck at rigid attendance requirements. The Court noted that the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules (Rule 12, 2008) set a baseline of 70% attendance (with 65% allowed by condonation), but many universities impose higher mandatory thresholds (often 75% or more) without flexibility[20][16]. Citing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and earlier UGC regulations, the Court reiterated that modern higher education must emphasize flexibility, interdisciplinary learning and online resources – not blind campus presence[21][15]. Mere enforcement of high attendance quotas “without discretion or compassion” was found unjustified, especially when it may force failing students out of exams and careers[15][22]. The judges held that no law student shall be barred from examinations or academic progression purely for lack of attendance[23][16].
Summing up: “barring the student from sitting in an examination cannot even be the last resort…considering the debilitating consequences for the student including mental health and career prospects,” the bench said[15].
Instead, the Court promoted alternative models. It cited examples (BITS Pilani’s flexible attendance policy, IIFT’s mild penalties) where low attendance led only to minor grade reductions or extra assignments, not exam bans[24][25]. The Court ordered the BCI to re-examine and reform its attendance rules in consultation with students, teachers and universities[26][27]. Pending such reform, interim measures were put in place nationwide: no student in any law college (or any degree course) should be detained or debarred from exams for attendance shortfall[28][23]. Colleges were instructed instead to monitor attendance actively (e.g. weekly online updates, monthly notices to parents) and to offer remedial support – extra classes, home assignments, or recognized credit for moot courts, internships or field work – to help students catch up[28][29]. The maximum penalty for poor attendance was capped at a 5% reduction in marks (0.33 points on the CGPA scale) – under no circumstances could a student lose a semester or be barred outright[30][25].
- Mental Health and Support Infrastructure: Beyond attendance, the Court addressed campus well-being. It noted that enforcing strict rules can create stress and even suicidal pressure. The Delhi HC directed institutions to bolster on-campus counseling. Each university and college must attach professional counselors or psychologists to their GRCs, and ensure these experts regularly participate in student grievance matters[18][19]. The judgment even referenced national mental-health programs (like the Tele-MANAS helpline) and held that education bodies should spread awareness of such support[31][18]. In essence, the courts demanded that universities “institutionalize mechanisms that protect the mental and emotional health of students”[29].
In summary, the High Court transformed Sushant Rohilla’s case into a broad educational reform. It issued detailed directives: no excessive detention for attendance, mandatory grievance committees with student and counselor involvement, proactive counseling services, and inclusion of practical learning in credit calculations[28][18]. These requirements reflect explicit judicial findings on how systemic failures – not just the singular event – contributed to the tragedy.
Regulatory and Institutional Responses:
Following the Rohilla judgment, regulatory bodies and universities moved to comply with the Court’s orders.
- University Grants Commission (UGC) & Ministry of Education: The High Court directed the UGC and the Ministry of Education (MoE) to act swiftly. As a first step, they were ordered to issue a circular to all colleges and universities at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, instructing them to constitute Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) within two weeks[17]. In line with that direction, the UGC reportedly sent an advisory on 19 September 2024 (even before the final judgment) requiring every higher-education institute to set up a Student Grievance Redressal Committee and report compliance to their affiliating university[32]. Failure to do so was to invite “action as per law”[17].
The MoE was also ordered to undertake a country-wide stakeholder consultation on attendance norms[33]. By late 2024, the MoE had held initial consultations (with students, teachers and regulators) on whether attendance should remain mandatory, given online learning options and student well-being[34]. The High Court in October 2024 even chastised the ministry for not fully reporting on that meeting[35], but confirmed that the process had begun. In short, UGC and MoE are now formally engaged in reviewing campus rules and pushing universities to improve grievance mechanisms nationwide.
- Bar Council of India (BCI): The Rohilla ruling placed special focus on the BCI’s role. The Court made clear that no law school should impose attendance requirements beyond the minimum set by the BCI, and that the BCI itself must revisit its rules[26][16]. In October 2024, the Court had already directed the BCI to re-assess its mandatory 70% rule for LL.B. courses, considering global standards[27]. The judgment fleshed out these directions: the BCI’s Legal Education Committee was instructed to meet and propose any necessary changes. Moreover, the BCI was tasked with updating its web portal: for example, it must publish a city-wise list of senior advocates, law firms and organizations offering internship opportunities, especially targeting economically weaker or remote students[36][37]. This is intended to ensure all law students have a fair chance to gain practical experience.
The Court also intervened in BCI’s administrative practices. It suspended a recent Bar Council circular (No. BCI:D:5186/2024) which had mandated biometric attendance and CCTV cameras at law colleges, holding that such surveillance “could aggravate psychological distress”[38]. In short, the judgment forced the BCI to pause heavy-handed policies and to work towards more humane attendance standards.
- Universities and Law Schools: In compliance with the HC orders, many institutions have begun revising policies. For instance, some law colleges reported that they would no longer cancel a student’s exam registration solely for attendance shortfall, but would instead dock marks slightly or arrange makeup lectures (as per the Court’s interim directions[28]). Official statements from Amity University (during the 2016 protest) had insisted its policy was just per university rules[2], but after the judgment Amity – like other affiliates of IP University – will have to align its rules with the new orders.
Student bodies and faculty associations have broadly welcomed the changes. The judgment’s emphasis on “support instead of punishment” in attendance matters has been praised by educators. Some law school administrators have noted the need to update their bye-laws: for example, by recognizing moot court or internship participation as equivalent to classroom attendance[39][29]. While detailed public statements from universities are still emerging, the general reaction in the academic community has been positive. Many see the judgment as a historic shift – as one columnist put it, the Court “changed the rules of consequence. Colleges can no longer stop a student from writing an exam just because the attendance shows a shortfall”[25].
Media and Stakeholder Commentary:
The Rohilla case attracted wide media coverage and commentary. In 2016, outlets such as The Times of India, Hindustan Times and Global Legal Post reported on the student protests and allegations against Amity Law School. These reports documented the facts: Rohilla’s suicide date, the 75% attendance rule, his low attendance record, and the demands for accountability[1][40]. For example, The Times of India described how Rohilla’s family and peers had launched campaigns (e.g. “Justice for Sushant”) and that the school had formed an inquiry committee in response[41][3].
After the 2025 judgment, national press again highlighted the key rulings. Hindustan Times headlined “No law student be barred from exams for lack of attendance” and summarized the order as a landmark protecting student mental health[23][42]. The Leaflet, a legal education forum, published an article noting that the HC not only forbade exam bans but required recognition of moot courts, internships and extracurriculars as part of attendance[16][43]. Bar & Bench, a prominent legal news site, ran a column titled “The rule that broke the student: Attendance, anxiety and what must change”, which applauded the Court’s humanistic message and detailed its new rules (no lost semester, only minor grade penalties, mandatory parental notice, etc.)[15][25].
Academics have weighed in as well. Legal scholars note that the Rohilla judgment may influence all of India because the BCI is a central body[44]. They emphasize that the Court’s directive for consultations and policy reform – rather than just case-by-case relief – marks the case as “a watershed in the evolution of Indian legal education” (one commentator called it a “Sushant Rohilla Intervention” for student welfare)[45][46]. In stakeholder reactions, student and mental-health advocates welcomed the focus on counseling and grievance committees, saying it aligns with similar Supreme Court directives in other campus suicide cases (e.g. Amit Kumar v. Union of India).
Some professional bodies expressed cautious support. The Bar Council of India, which was at the center of the ruling, issued a statement (via its official channels) that it would comply with the court’s directions on attendance and internships. The Law Ministry and Ministry of Education have also indicated they will circulate the HC’s guidelines. Within universities, faculty senate meetings and administrative councils are reportedly being called to discuss updating attendance policies and support services.
Overall, the Rohilla case has spurred introspection across the higher-education community. It has brought widespread attention to how rigid administrative rules can harm students. Many commentators see the judgment as not only addressing one tragedy but triggering long-overdue discussion on student welfare nationwide.
Conclusion:
The suicide of Sushant Rohilla was a personal tragedy that exposed systemic flaws in legal education. The Delhi High Court’s detailed scrutiny has now transformed that tragedy into an opportunity for reform. By legally mandating stronger grievance systems, flexible attendance rules, and on-campus mental-health support, the judgment aims to ensure that “learning cannot come at the cost of a student’s mind”[15]. If properly implemented, these changes could improve campus safety and compassion at law schools and universities across India. The Rohilla case thus stands as a landmark: a stark reminder that institutional rules must serve students’ dignity and well-being, not endanger them.
Shortfall of sources: While the HC judgment itself and many reports have been cited, ongoing developments (such as precise changes made by every law school) are still emerging. The article relies on the latest available sources, including the full High Court judgment, press coverage, and expert commentary. Any future actions by UGC, BCI or institutions will further clarify the lasting impact of this case.
REFERENCES;
[1] [5] – New Delhi law students strike over classmate’s suicide – The Global Legal Post
[2] [3] – Amity Law School students protest student’s suicide | Noida News – Times of India
[4] [40] [41] – Protests continue in Amity law school over student’s suicide | Hindustan Times
[6] [45] – Sushant Rohilla Case: When the High Court Became the Guardian of Law Student Rights.
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [18] [20] [21] [24] [26] [28] [30] – Mandatory Attendance Cannot Cost a Student’s Life: Delhi HC orders nationwide reform in legal education after Sushant Rohilla case| SCC Times
[15] [19] [25] [29] – The rule that broke the student: Attendance, anxiety and what must change
[16] [39] [43] [44]– Delhi HC’s Sushant Rohilla decision invites a rethinking of legal education’s aim https://theleaflet.in/education/delhi-hcs-sushant-rohilla-decision-invites-a-rethinking-of-legal-educations-aim
[17] [31] [33] [36] [38] delhihighcourt.nic.in
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS03112025CRLW7932017_132654.pdf
[22] [23] [42] – No law student be barred from exams for lack of attendance, says HC in ruling 9 yrs after Delhi suicide sparked concern | India News
[27] [32] [34] [35] Delhi HC directs BCI to reevaluate LL.B. attendance requirements following Amity suicide case| SCC Times
[37] Delhi High Court: Law Students can’t be barred from exams over lack of Minimum Attendance. – LILY THOMAS
[46] Delhi-HC-Issues-Landmark-Reforms-in-Sushant-Rohilla-Student-Welfare-CaseThe Mentorship Project
