Delhi HC Directs Ministry Of Education To Initiate Stakeholder Consultation On Mandatory Attendance Norms For UG And PG Courses

The Court was hearing a Suo Motu Writ Petition which was instituted after the Court on August 21, 2024, took note of the unfortunate suicide of a law student of Amity Law School, Delhi, in which the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of a letter petition, by a friend, and had finally transferred the matter to the High Court.

The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma directed, “the Secretary Ministry of Education dealing with Higher Education shall commence a stakeholder consultation on the question as to whether attendance norms ought to be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.”

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared for the Petitioner and ASG Chetan Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

In the August 21, 2024 order directions were given for impleadment of various regulatory bodies including the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of India through the ld. Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The Court also requested the ld. ASG to assist the Court.

The Court noted the submission made by the Bar Council of India which has taken a position that in terms of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008 there is a mandatory attendance which is prescribed under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules.

The Court also noted the submission of the ASG, which said that insofar as attendance norms are concerned, large-scale consultation would be required with various stakeholders including the regulatory bodies such as the University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education, National Medical Commission, Institute of Clinical Research, BCI as also the National Council for Teacher’s Education and National Council for Vocational Education and Training.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the UGC as also the Secretary Ministry of Education through the Department dealing with Higher Education shall issue a circular across the country to all educational institutions at undergraduate and postgraduate level to, as a last opportunity, to constitute their Grievance Redressal Committees within two weeks.

The Court while directing the Secretary Ministry of Education to commence a stakeholder consultation on the question as to whether attendance norms ought to be made mandatory in undergraduate and postgraduate courses said that the following factors shall be borne in mind, along with any other relevant factors:-

“i. Whether mandatory attendance norms are being actually followed in institutions of higher education or have the same been rendered redundant in most courses, especially in non-clinical and non-practical courses;

ii. Whether mandatory attendance norms are being genuinely followed by students as it is stated that attendance by proxy has become quite prevalent, at least in some institutions;

iii. Would mandatory attendance requirements be necessary in courses which are based purely on theory or self-learning;

iv. Whether mandatory attendance norms would be needed considering that students have access to various learning platforms, including internet platforms, which are beyond classroom learning;

v. Whether mandatory attendance norms have been prescribed internationally, in other countries, and if so in which countries, and for which courses;

vi. Whether mandatory attendance norms can be relaxed, and if so in what manner and for which courses;

vii. What are the safeguards that institutions need to put in place to accommodate students, who do not fulfil the mandatory attendance norms;

viii. Whether the enforcement of mandatory attendance norms, through penalties such as debarment from exams, halting promotion to the next class/ academic year, etc. ought to be permitted;

ix. Whether student should be encouraged to attend classes with positive measures such as incentives, promotion, additional marks, etc;

x. The impact of mandatory attendance norms on the physical and mental health of the students and the role of Grievance Redressal Committees;

xi. Whether voluntary attending of classes ought to be encouraged, in order to enhance responsibility amongst the students rather than forcing the same through penalties etc;

xii. Whether students, who are employed, ought to be encouraged to pursue their studies without enforcing the mandatory attendance norms or avail of open learning;

xiii. Whether a warning system ought to be put in place before penalising any students or parents for lacking in attendance;

xiv. Whether teachers also ought to be answerable for lack of attendance by students;

xv. Whether attendance norms should be the same for urban and rural areas, based on internet penetration and access to information;

xvi. Considering the manner in which classes are conducted in the post-pandemic (Covid19) era, should it be mandatory to have hybrid mode of teaching and whether physical attendance is required or even online or virtual attendance would be permissible to complete the mandatory attendance norms;

xvii. Whether classroom learning needs to be made more analytical and application based, to make students attend classes voluntarily rather than mandatorily;

xviii. Whether examination patterns need to be changed to make question papers more analytical and application based, which would require students to attend classes and engage in discussions rather than studying from mere guidebooks, like dukki, etc;

xix. What type of technological interventions can be applied for the purpose of improving, teaching- learning, evaluation process, enhancing educational access and streamlining education planning and administration including processes related to admission, attendance, assessment, etc;

xx. What steps can be taken by Educational Institutions for ensuring better quality of classroom infrastructure to promote voluntary participation of students in classes and hybrid mode of teaching.”

The Court also directed the BCI to place on record the material that it has relied upon to take the position that attendance norms are mandatory internationally as well.

The Court listed the matter on October 14, 2024.