Delhi High Court: In a petition arising from the tragic suicide of a final-year B.A. LL.B. student of Amity Law School, Delhi allegedly after prolonged mental distress stemming from institutional harassment and his detention from the sixth-semester examinations due to shortage of attendance, a division bench of Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., directed sweeping reforms in higher and legal education across India and held that mandatory attendance norms cannot be so rigid or punitive as to jeopardize a student’s mental health or lead to loss of life.
Factual Background
On 10-08-2016, the 4th-year B.A. LL.B. student of Amity Law School, Delhi (ALSD), then affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU was found dead. A close friend wrote a detailed letter dated 20-08-2016 to the then Chief Justice of India, highlighting that the victim had been mentally harassed by faculty and administration for failure to maintain 75% attendance despite suffering a physical injury. The letter also emphasized that the deceased had been an exemplary student convener of the debating society, active in moot courts, and a mentor to juniors. The friend implored the Court to take cognizance not only of the specific incident but also of the larger issue of mental health challenges faced by students due to institutional pressure.
This letter petition prayed for
(a) constitution of an independent judicial committee to inquire into the victim’s death and
(b) formulation of nationwide regulations on addressing mental health issues in higher education institutions.
The Supreme Court treated the letter as a suo motu writ petition on 05-09-2016, appointed Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae, and sought a response from Amity Law School. On 06-03-2017, the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Delhi High Court for adjudication on merits.
Criminal Proceedings
Parallelly, an FIR was registered on 10-08-2017 under Section 306 IPC based on complaints by the deceased’s sister alleging that Sushant had been continuously humiliated and harassed by the college administration and a particular faculty member, and that his parents were not informed about his attendance shortage.
The investigation was later transferred to the Delhi Police Crime Branch, which concluded that there was no direct or indirect instigation or conspiracy to abet suicide. A closure report was filed before the ACJM, Patiala House Courts, on 08-01-2018.
The deceased’s sister filed a protest petition, which was decided on 03-10-2024. The ACJM accepted the closure report, holding that no material existed to prove deliberate provocation or abetment by ALSD officials. It was observed that detaining a student due to lack of attendance, though distressing, could not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. However, considering additional material in the protest petition, the Magistrate directed it to be treated as a fresh complaint, which remains pending.
Proceedings before Delhi High Court
Following the transfer of the writ petition, the Delhi High Court by order dated 14-03-2017 issued notice to GGSIPU and permitted Sushant’s sister to intervene. On 16-05-2017, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on systemic issues arising from the case.
Subsequent proceedings before the Court addressed two parallel dimensions:
-
The individual tragedy and accountability of the concerned institution; and
-
The broader systemic reforms necessary in higher education to prevent recurrence of such incidents.
In 2024, when the Trial Court had not yet decided the closure report and protest petition, the Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and directed the ACJM to decide the same expeditiously. Later, on 09-09-2024, the Court explored an ex-gratia settlement between ALSD and Sushant’s family. On 14-11-2024, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a comprehensive out-of-court settlement. The family agreed not to pursue further criminal proceedings, including the protest petition. The Court deleted the professors from the array of parties, while retaining Amity Law School, Delhi as a party solely for institutional assistance on the broader issues.
While the personal dispute was settled, the Delhi High Court transformed the case into a landmark public interest proceeding addressing systemic flaws in student grievance redressal and mental health frameworks in Indian universities.
Proceedings in the writ petition
The proceedings in the present petition continued parallel to the criminal proceedings mentioned above. However, in addition to considering the case of the deceased student, the Court also seized the larger issues arising from the unfortunate incident in respect of –
(i) setting up of Grievance Redressal Committees (hereinafter “GRCs”) in all Institutes of Higher Education, and
(ii) reconsidering the mandatory attendance requirements prescribed for different courses.
Analysis and Conclusions
The Court noted that the NEP, 2020 envisages multidisciplinary study, online classes, as also increasing virtual participation of students and teachers. The crux of both the NEP and the extant 2003 UGC Regulations is flexibility and not rigidity. It is common knowledge that in today’s day and age, the way education is imparted through online classes, public domain video tutorials, etc., encourages and enables a growing number of youths to conceptually understand through these modes of learning. Such learning is, in fact, sometimes even better than classroom learning.
The Court opined that the BCI is the body which is vested with the powers to regulate legal education. But the same cannot be in digression with the overall vision as envisaged in the National Education Policy, 2020 which does not even mention mandatory attendance requirements for students, but in fact emphasises the same for teachers. Thus, Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which bars students from being allowed to take the end semester exam without the minimum of 70% attendance, which can be reduced to 65% in exceptional circumstances, is not in line with the principles enshrined in the NEP, 2020 and is also contrary to the spirit of 2003 UGC Regulations which provides for flexibility. Moreover, the BCI has even gone a step forward by making attendance norms mandatory even for enrolment, which also deserves a re-look.
On mandatory attendance norms, the Court concluded that the right to appear in examinations cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by attendance shortages, especially when such detentions lack proportionality and compassion. Alternative models followed by leading institutions were cited approvingly:
-
BITS Pilani, which follows a flexible, non-mandatory attendance policy.
-
IIFT Delhi, which imposes mild academic penalties (such as reduced grades) instead of barring examination.
-
Other universities that conduct supplementary exams or apply grade reduction mechanisms to balance discipline with compassion.
Such systems, the Court observed, encourage attendance without punitive consequences or mental health harm. It therefore directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate and reform attendance norms for law courses in consultation with stakeholders, integrating credit for practical learning (moot courts, debates, model parliaments, internships) into attendance computation.
Pending such reform, the Court issued interim protective directions:
-
No student shall be detained or barred from examinations due to attendance shortage.
-
Attendance thresholds must not exceed those prescribed by the BCI.
-
Colleges must implement ameliorative measures such as weekly online attendance notifications, monthly communication to parents, extra classes, home assignments, and recognition of practical legal work as compensatory attendance.
-
Students may face only minor academic consequences — a maximum reduction of 5% in marks or 0.33 in CGPA — but shall not be denied promotion or examination access.
Further, the Court suspended the operation of the BCI’s Biometric Attendance Circular (BCI:D:5186/2024), holding that technological surveillance in classrooms could aggravate psychological distress among students.
On strengthening grievance redress mechanisms, the Court mandated that all universities and affiliated institutions must constitute GRCs under the UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023.
The Court issued detailed directions to institutionalize empathy and representation within GRCs:
-
GRCs must include at least 50% student members as full participants, not mere invitees.
-
Gender diversity and inclusive representation must be ensured.
-
A panel of counsellors and therapists must be attached to each GRC, consulted regularly on student well-being.
-
The Bar Council of India, while accrediting law colleges, must require proof of functioning GRCs and adequate psychological support infrastructure.
Through these measures, the Court sought to institutionalize mechanisms that protect the mental and emotional health of students and promote responsiveness within educational systems.
[Courts on its Own Motion in Re Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7920, decided on 03-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Monika Arora, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Bhaskar, Advocates for IMC
Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Mr. Raajan Chawla, Mr. Gautam Chauhan and Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocates for R-1/Amity Law School
Mrs. Anju Bhushan Gupta, with Mr. Aditya Goel and Mr. Sanyam Gupta, Advocates for R-33
Mr. Anil Soni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Advocate.
Ms. Bharathi Raju, Senior Panel Counsel for UOI
Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Advocate for UOI.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for NSUT, DTU and IGDTUW with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat and Mr. A. Chadha, Advocates.
Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh, Ms. Jayita Verma, Mr. Lashay Saini and Ms. Shriya Singh, Advocates for R-32.
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Shivam Dubey and Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Advocates for IARI
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh and Mr. Aabhaas Sukhramani, Advocates for NMC and DCI
Mr. Keshav Datta and Mr. Rupal Luthra, Advocates for Intervenor
Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, Ms. Devika Thakur and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advocates for R-12 and R-22/IIFT and JNU
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Akansha Singh, Mr. Madhukar Pandey and Mr. Yash Saini, Advocates for BCI
Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Mr. Rahul Pandey, Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Mr. Harsh Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Raj and Mr. Sudipta Singha Roy, Advocates for AIIMS
Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate for R-24.
Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for UGC with Mr. Vaibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha Gaur, Advocates for R-36.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advocates for R-18.
Mr. Siddharth Panda and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for R-19 (ILBS).