Recently, the Delhi High Court noted that the mandatory attendance requirements for undergraduate and postgraduate students must be immediately reevaluated.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that students of today perceive mandatory attendance in a different manner, and their mental health is impacted by these mandatory conditions.
The court has announced its intention to establish a committee to investigate a variety of factors related to the matter in order to establish consistent attendance requirements for undergraduate and postgraduate students.
The Court said, “This issue deserves to be addressed at a much higher level rather than restricting it to any specific course/college/university/institution. Regulatory bodies as also some universities have in their statutes/ordinances, historically, prescribed mandatory attendance requirements. In the opinion of this Court, the same may require reconsideration, especially bearing in mind the teaching methods which have substantially changed including post the COVID-19 pandemic. In recent times, it is not unusual for colleges and universities to hold classes virtually, to hold examinations virtually or via online platforms.”
The Bench emphasized the necessity of promoting attendance rather than penalizing students for a shortage by excluding them from exams.
The order stated, “Global practices followed by leading educational institutions around the world would also need to be analysed to see whether mandatory attendance requirements are even required. In the opinion of this Court, teachers and students need to be consulted in order to consider what should be the standards of attendance. Wider consultation would also be required to be undertaken to have a relook at the need to have mandatory attendance.”
The Central government, National Medical Commission, Department of Education, and other stakeholders were directed by the Court to submit their submissions regarding the matter.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on September 9.
The Bench issued the directives in response to a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) petition that was initiated following the suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla.
Rohilla attended Amit University as a student. It was claimed that the institution and certain faculty members harassed him for his low attendance. After being compelled to repeat an entire academic year in the BA LLB course, he purportedly committed suicide.
