RE: Suicide committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P University

Case: Courts on its own motion in RE: Suicide committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P University

Citation: W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & CRL.M.As.16639/2017, 8850/2024

Bench: Justice Pratibha M Singh, Justice Amit Sharma

Date of Judgment: 3^rd November, 2025

The case revolves around the death of a student of Amity Law School, Noida which was then affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. The said student was the convenor of the debate committee of the college and was good at his academics, who also mentored students of his college for moot court and debating events. Due to the strict enforcement of the 75% attendance policy of the institution and Sushant Rohilla’s non-compliance with that policy, caused the university to ask him to repeat the year. Due to alleged constant harassment from the administration of the college, he committed suicide.

The case stems from this incident, which raises questions on the attendance requirements of universities. The hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment mentions at length the importance of ensuring the student’s mental health is protected. The importance of an education that focuses on practical experience than theoretical learning was emphasised by the court. The classroom experience should be accompanied by practical experience. University education begins for students at the prime time of their youth, where focus must be on academic excellence, coupled with holistic growth, which includes physical activities such as sports, extra-curricular activities such as dance, music, drama, art, as also building interpersonal relationships, social skills in preparation for a life that awaits them beyond the gates of the University. The National Education Policy, 2020 and the 2003 University Grants Commission recommendations are two important factors of education in India, which also lays emphasis on flexibility for the students of the country. The appropriate authority for deciding the rules for legal education is the Bar Council of India, which has mandated a 70% attendance policy for law students, making it mandatory for students to follow, otherwise academic action can be initiated against the student. The court held that the Bar Council of India Regulations is in conflict with the spirit of the UGC 2003 guidelines and National Education Policy, 2020, because it does not even mention the attendance policy. The right to appear in an examination can only be taken away by a due process of the law, but at the same time, ensuring that the actions taken are reasonable and not arbitrary.

The court held that all universities will have to constitute Grievance Redressal Commissions to understand student concerns. It also held that the BCI must amend conditions for affiliation under Rule 16 of the Legal Education to include the appointment of counsellors in the GRCs of the respective universities for legal education.

The court held that the BCI must address the attendance policy it maintains, and called for a revaluation for the attendance policies for 3 year and 5 year law students, ensuring that their talent, skills and work in the form of moot court, debates, and competitions is not compromised, and must be ensured through the giving of credits for various activities conducted. The court also held that no student can be detained from writing examinations or prevented from academic pursuits just because of the attendance policy. Secondly, no institution in India can have an attendance policy more than the policy mandated by the Bar Council of India, thereby prohibiting misuse of the said provision. Thirdly, the court also said that the students must receive an attendance report at the end of every week through the mobile app. Fourthly, conducting extra classes for those falling short of attendance and home assignments to be completed, which could be recognised as attendance for any particular lecture. Fifth, practical work in legal aid clinics could also be ensured. In terms of marks, the court said that in case the student does not meet the attendance requirement at the end of the semester, 5% marks could be deducted or in case the CGPA system is being followed, then 0.33% of that can be deducted. The court reasoned that even though the marks of a student are being reduced, the student is not facing a serious threat to his/her career and the importance of that was realised in this judgment. BCI shall also take steps to enable internships to be made available to all students, especially those students belonging to economically weaker background, remote areas, specially-abled students etc. who do not have resources to arrange the same. Accordingly, the list of senior advocates, advocates, law firms, regulatory bodies, government organisations, etc. who are willing to provide internships to students, shall be published by the BCI and the State Bar Councils on their respective websites within three months. Thus, the court recognized the concerns of students in its entirety.

Thus, it can be understood that the court recognised students’ rights. It saves the students from repeating a year due to the stringent attendance policies of certain educational institutions, some of which even promoted 80% attendance, which is purely draconian for students. It leaves the students with time to participate in internships, moot court competitions, Model United Nations Competitions, time for study and personal growth. This personal growth involves facets like health and fitness. This judgment has far-reaching consequences for all universities in India.

The court has recognised the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, with Article 21A being the right to education, and a striking balance is being observed. The expansive interpretation of Article 21, which promotes the idea of a reasonable life, not merely a skeletal existence, is applied. It recognises the students’ right to life, while still balancing it with Article 21A. This judgment opens a chapter in the book of students’ rights and is a landmark judgment in the segment of education, especially legal education.

Bibliography-

1. Courts on Its Own Motion in Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. UniversityP. (Crl) 793/2017, [2025] DHC 9600 (3 November 2025) (Delhi High Court) https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS03112025CRLW7932017_132654.pdf Accessed on 30th January, 2026.
2. Vinay Kumar, ‘Delhi HC’s Sushant Rohilla decision invites a rethinking of legal education’s aim’ The Leaflet (8 November 2025) https://theleaflet.in/education/delhi-hcs-sushant-rohilla-decision-invites-a-rethinking-of-legal-educations-aim Accessed on 29^th January, 2026.