How should law schools change attendance norms?, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Delhi High Court addressed the enforcement of university attendance policies following the 2016 suicide of a law student.
• The court emphasized that universities must exercise disciplinary authority fairly and reasonably, within constitutional norms.
• While upholding attendance requirements, the court objected to their rigid enforcement without warning or counseling.
• Universities must now provide weekly attendance updates, counseling, and opportunities to address shortfalls before debarring students.
• The Bar Council of India (BCI) has been urged to reconsider its attendance rules in light of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Detailed Insights:

• The core issue was not attendance itself, but the mechanical and unfair enforcement of attendance rules by universities.
• The judgment draws from Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing non-arbitrariness and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.
• The court linked fairness to Article 21, protecting dignity and mental well-being, ensuring due process and student welfare.
• Universities must now foster supportive environments, integrate counseling services, and establish Grievance Redressal Committees.
• Experiential learning like moots and legal-aid work should count toward academic engagement, promoting participation over policing.
• The BCI's Rule 12, which mandates 70% attendance, relaxable to 65% in exceptional cases, was deemed "extremely strict".
• The court highlighted that debarment should be viewed as an extreme step with grave academic consequences, requiring careful consideration.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action.
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity.
• National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: Aims to create a flexible, learner-centered education system.