Legal Review and Analysis of Courts On Its Own Motion In Re Suicide Committed By Sushant Rohilla 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9600

In-Short 

Case: Courts On Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide Committed By Sushant RohillaCitation: W.P.(CRL) 793/2017, Delhi High Court (Decided on 03.11.2025)A landmark judgment where the Delhi High Court, prioritizing student mental health, mandated a reform of Grievance Redressal Committees and directed the Bar Council of India to relax its rigid attendance norms for law courses, aligning them with the National Education Policy, 2020.

1. Heading of the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
W.P.(CRL) 793/2017 & Connected Applications
Courts On Its Own Motion In Re: Suicide Committed By Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University
Date of Decision: 3rd November, 2025
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment engages with a wide array of legal and regulatory frameworks, including:

• Constitution of India: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty, encompassing mental health).

• Substantive Criminal Law: Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Abetment of Suicide).

• Procedural Criminal Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 173 and 174).

• Statutory Regulators:
  The Advocates Act, 1961 (Sections 7(h), 49(1)(d)).
  The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

• Regulatory Regimes:
  Bar Council of India Rules, 2008 (Part IV - Rules of Legal Education, specifically Rule 10, Rule 12, and Rule 26 of Schedule III).
  University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023.
  University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the First Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003.
  National Education Policy, 2020.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated by the Supreme Court based on a letter concerning the tragic suicide of law student Sushant Rohilla on 10th August 2016. The student, from Amity Law School (affiliated with GGSIPU), was debarred from his 6th-semester examinations for failing to meet the mandatory 75% attendance requirement. The petition alleged that harassment by faculty and the detention due to attendance shortage led to his suicide. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Delhi High Court in 2017. Parallel criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC culminated in a closure report, which was accepted by the Magistrate. Subsequently, the student's family and the institution arrived at an out-of-court settlement. However, the High Court continued to address the larger systemic issues flagged by the case, namely the structure of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) and the rationale behind mandatory attendance norms in higher education, particularly in legal studies.

4. Core Principles and Analysis of the Judgment

The judgment transcends the specific incident to conduct a seminal analysis of the systemic pressures on students in higher education. The core of the judgment is divided into two major issues, with an in-depth examination of each.

I. Analysis of Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs)

The Issue: The effectiveness of mechanisms within educational institutions to address student grievances, including those related to mental health, and whether existing regulations are sufficient.

The Court's Analysis and Findings:
The Court noted the alarming rise in student suicides across India, referencing recent Supreme Court judgments in Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh that recognize mental health as an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. It commended the steps taken by various Delhi-based institutions (like IIT Delhi, AIIMS, NLU Delhi) in setting up robust GRCs with significant student representation, mentorship programs, and well-being cells.

However, the Court found the UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023, to be inadequate. It criticized the provision that makes a student representative a mere "special invitee" with a one-year term, contrary to the two-year term for faculty members. The Court held that for a GRC to be effective, it must have students as full-time members, constituting at least 50% of the committee, to ensure genuine peer-level understanding and intervention. It also emphasized the necessity of integrating trained counsellors and therapists into the GRC framework to address mental health concerns proactively.

II. Analysis of Mandatory Attendance Norms for Legal Education

The Issue: Whether the rigid mandatory physical attendance requirement of 70% under Rule 12 of the BCI's Legal Education Rules, 2008, is justified, especially in the context of modern pedagogical methods and its impact on student mental health.

The Court's Analysis and Findings:
This constitutes the most profound part of the judgment. The Court conducted a multi-faceted review:

• National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 as a Paradigm Shift: The Court observed that the NEP 2020, which envisions a holistic, flexible, and multi-disciplinary education system with an emphasis on blended online-offline learning, nowhere prescribes mandatory attendance for students. This silence was interpreted as a deliberate move away from rigid, physical attendance-centric models.

• The Three Dimensions of Legal Education: The judgment brilliantly deconstructed legal education into three dimensions:
  Knowledge of the Law: Theoretical understanding of statutes and jurisprudence.
  Practical Application: Skills gained through moot courts, debates, and seminars.
  Implementation: Real-world understanding from court visits, internships, and legal aid clinics.
  The Court reasoned that an inflexible focus on classroom attendance (Dimension 1) severely undermines the other two dimensions, which are crucial for producing competent lawyers.

• Inflexibility of BCI Rules: The Court criticized Rule 12 of the BCI Rules for its "all or nothing" approach—where the sole consequence of falling short of the 70% mark is debarment from examinations. It contrasted this with the more flexible approaches of institutions like IIFT-Delhi (which reduces grades for low attendance) and BITS Pilani (which has no mandatory attendance), advocating for a system that encourages responsibility without resorting to punitive detention.

• Mental Health and Arbitrariness: Linking debarment directly to mental health crises and student suicides, the Court held that an absolute bar on taking examinations is arbitrary and unreasonable. It impinges upon a student's right to pursue education and, by extension, their right to life under Article 21. The Court also questioned the BCI's circular mandating biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance as being excessively invasive of student privacy.

• Systemic Failure: The judgment highlighted the hypocrisy in the system where institutions often fail to conduct the minimum number of classes mandated by BCI's own Rule 10, yet penalize students for not meeting attendance thresholds. This creates an unfair burden on students.

5. Final Outcome and Directions

The High Court issued sweeping directions to reform the educational landscape:

A. Directions on Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs):

1. All institutions must constitute GRCs as per UGC Regulations, 2023.

2. The UGC must amend its Regulations to ensure students constitute at least 50% of the GRC as full-time members, not special invitees, with adequate gender representation.

3. Pending amendment, all GRCs must have 2-3 student nominees as full members.

4. A panel of counsellors and therapists must be retained and consulted by GRCs.

5. The BCI must amend its affiliation rules to mandate the appointment of counsellors/psychologists in law college GRCs.

B. Directions on Mandatory Attendance Norms:

1. The BCI must re-evaluate and modify its mandatory attendance norms for LL.B. courses in line with the NEP 2020, through wide stakeholder consultation.

2. As an interim measure:
   a. No law student in India can be detained or barred from exams or career progression solely due to a lack of attendance.
   b. Institutions must implement "ameliorative measures" like weekly online attendance updates, notices to parents, extra classes, and home assignments.
   c. Attendance must be calculated based on "actual classes held."
   d. If a student still has a shortfall, they must be allowed to take the exam, but the university can reduce their final grade/marks by a maximum of 5% (or 0.33 CGPA). Promotion to the next semester cannot be withheld.

3. The BCI and State Bar Councils must, within three months, publish and regularly update a city-wise list of advocates, law firms, and organizations willing to offer internships, to assist students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

4. The BCI's Circular dated 24th September 2024, mandating biometric attendance and CCTV surveillance, is stayed and shall not be implemented.

6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

1. According to the Delhi High Court's judgment in "Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla", what is the primary reason for directing the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider its mandatory attendance norms for law courses?
(a) To reduce the academic workload on law faculty.
(b) Because classroom learning is no longer considered effective for legal education.
(c) The norms are inconsistent with the flexibility and holistic approach envisaged in the National Education Policy, 2020, and have a debilitating impact on student mental health.
(d) To allow law students to take up full-time employment parallel to their studies.

2. As an interim measure, what is the directed consequence for a law student who, even after availing ameliorative measures, fails to meet the BCI's mandatory attendance requirement at the end of a semester?
(a) The student must repeat the entire academic year.
(b) The student is permanently debarred from the law course.
(c) The student is allowed to take the examination, but the university can reduce their final grade/marks by a maximum of 5%, and promotion to the next semester cannot be withheld.
(d) The student's degree will not be recognized by the Bar Council of India for enrolment.