For years, law students across India have found themselves stuck between classrooms and courtrooms — forced to navigate the rigid demands of attendance policies while simultaneously trying to gain real-world experience. The recent court ruling that law students cannot be barred from examinations purely on the ground of low attendance marks a significant turning point in legal education. It is a decision that not only addresses fairness but also acknowledges a crucial truth: legal learning extends far beyond the lecture hall.
The controversy stems from the long-standing 75% attendance mandate in most law schools. While designed to encourage regular participation, in practice, this rule often punished students who were actively engaged in internships, research projects, moot courts, or other forms of professional exposure. Bright and ambitious students, who were technically “absent” from class but deeply involved in activities that enriched their legal training, faced the harsh reality of being barred from exams. For many, this led to unnecessary stress, anxiety, and in some cases, compromised academic performance.
The students who challenged the attendance bar argued that the rule was arbitrary and disproportionate. Their contention was simple but powerful: the essence of legal education lies in developing analytical skills, practical experience, and professional readiness — none of which can be captured entirely through physical presence in a classroom. The universities, on the other hand, defended the policy, citing discipline, classroom participation, and uniformity as reasons for maintaining strict attendance.
The court, in its judgment, sided with the students. It observed that barring a student solely for low attendance undermines the spirit of legal education. The bench emphasised that assessment of academic engagement should be holistic — including internships, moot court participation, research work, and other meaningful learning activities. Attendance can indicate presence, but presence alone is not a reliable measure of learning, the court pointed out.
This ruling carries broader implications beyond the immediate relief to students. Firstly, it challenges the notion that education can be quantified purely by hours spent in class. Law, by its nature, is both theoretical and practical. Moot courts, legal research, client interaction, and internships are as integral to a student’s development as traditional lectures. By recognising this, the court has essentially called for a shift in how legal education is administered — moving from a rigid system of rules to a more nuanced, learning-centric approach.
Secondly, the decision acknowledges the pressures that modern law students face. Balancing academics with internships, competitions, and other professional commitments has long been a source of stress. The judgment offers much-needed relief, allowing students to focus on meaningful learning rather than mere compliance with attendance percentages. It sends a clear message: quality of engagement matters more than quantity of time spent in class.
That said, the ruling is not a carte blanche to skip lectures. Universities still have the authority to ensure that students engage meaningfully with their coursework. The key change is that attendance can no longer be used as the sole criterion to bar a student from examinations. Students are now expected to demonstrate consistent engagement with their academic and practical responsibilities — whether in classrooms, courts, or research labs. This balance ensures that flexibility does not translate into laxity.
From a broader perspective, the judgment also touches upon a philosophical point about education. Law is not just about memorising statutes or sitting through lectures; it is about developing the ability to think critically, apply knowledge in practical settings, and engage with real-life legal challenges. By prioritising overall engagement over mere presence, the court has essentially recognised that the future of legal education must evolve with the profession itself.
For students, the ruling is liberating. It validates the countless hours spent in moot courts, internships, and research projects — experiences that traditional attendance metrics often failed to account for. For educators and institutions, it is a reminder that policies should facilitate learning, not hinder it.
In conclusion, this decision is more than a legal technicality; it is a recognition of how law should be learned. Attendance may prove you showed up, but it cannot prove you learned. True legal education is about active participation, intellectual engagement, and real-world application. By acknowledging this, the court has sent a strong message to students and institutions alike: legal learning cannot be confined to the four walls of a classroom. It lives in debate, practice, and engagement — and finally, the system has caught up to that reality.