'No Substitute For Physical Classes': MP High Court Remarks In Debarred NLU Bhopal Student's Plea Challenging BCI's Attendance Rules

While hearing a writ petition filed by a student of the National Law Institute University Bhopal who was debarred due to shortage of attendance, the Madhya Pradesh High Court orally said that "there is no substitute for physical classes" adding that video conferencing must be an exception rather than the rule.

The student, in the petition, challenged the validity of the attendance regulations prescribed by the Bar Council of India, specifically Rule 12 of the BCI's Legal Education Rules, along with Rule 7 of the 2023 Ordinance issued by NLIU, Bhopal.

According to the petition, the student was suffering from a spinal medical condition, which led to a shortfall in her attendance. Although the University granted a relaxation and reduced the attendance requirement to 60%, the student's actual attendance stood at 54.8%, falling below the threshold mandated. It was argued that the relaxation provided was insufficient in the circumstances. The petitioner informed the court that the student is being made to take a year back and repeat the session.

The high court had in January this year in an interim order allowed the student to attend classes for the time being.

During the hearing today a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, orally observed that education, particularly legal education, demanded classroom engagement. It noted that human interaction, discipline and the classroom environment were essential elements of legal training.

The bench said, "Exceptional circumstances can provide for exceptional solutions. COVID is over. Moreover, it is classroom lectures that are most important... In exceptional circumstances, we can have live hearings or live lectures because of acts of God. Video conferencing must be the exception rather than the rule. There is no substitute for physical classes. Substitute is there, but it is a very poor substitute".

The petitioner's counsel argued that the BCI had failed to file its reply, despite sufficient time being granted. The urgency, he said, stemmed from the fact that the new academic session was due to commence on July 7.

The University, however, argued that the student's attendance stood only at 54.8%. It was argued that the University had already relaxed the attendance requirement to 60% to accommodate the student.

The advocate appearing for BCI, however, submitted that a committee was already constituted to examine the issue. The court was also informed that the BCI had issued notice to the University as it had violated the BCI's Legal Education Rules by relaxing the attendance requirement to 60%.

The court, orally said that under the existing framework, the University lacked the authority to unilaterally reduce the attendance requirement. It emphasised that the autonomy to relax the attendance belonged exclusively to BCI, which had already set the minimum benchmark at 65% for exceptional cases. "The university cannot go beyond the 70% attendance mandate even if the medical board says it is justified", the bench added.

The petitioner clarified that she did not challenge the 65% requirement of BCI, acknowledging it as a matter for academic and professional experts. However, she contended that the rules operate as a 'one-size-fits-all' framework, which fails to take into account individual circumstances, including prolonged illness. The petitioner emphasised the need for subjective satisfaction and flexibility in exceptional cases.

The petitioner, referring to law students' cases before the Delhi and Meghalaya High Courts, suggested that rules must be interpreted with due consideration for student welfare and contemporary dynamics.

The court orally expressed reservations about the reasoning adopted by the other High Courts, stating that the rules were clear that attendance could not fall below 65%. Allowing exceptions below this threshold, the court emphasised, would lead to a situation where students with 40% attendance or 10% attendance would seek exemptions.

The petitioner further emphasised the mental issues affecting the students, citing a suo motu case of the Delhi High Court of a student suicide. Citing the order of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner reiterated the need for compassionate alternatives to debarment.

Sympathising with the students, the court remarked that the rising student deaths are from multifaceted stressors, including broken family structures, societal pressure etc.

"When we were students, in our childhood, we never heard of a single instance where a student committed suicide. Never. The number of suicides taking place today is enormous, and not all of them are because of this. And that suicides are taking place is not a reason to lower the standards. The family situation has changed. Families today are broken families. There are so many different types of stress on students that were not there earlier. There was one case of a child trying to commit suicide by partial hanging because the mother refused screen time. We cannot go into each one of these cases. If a person has committed suicide, there could be 101 reasons—and one of the reasons may be because the person is not allowed to sit for the exam, maybe. But then that is not a reason to commit suicide. One year lost does not mean the heavens are going to fall on you. Look upon it as if you have gotten one more year to improve yourself, for the next class. There has been a lot of thought that has gone into relaxing the attendance requirement to 65%", the court said.

The court further said that the classroom lectures were central to academic learning. The petitioner submitted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, education had successfully shifted to virtual platforms and questioned why similar flexibility cannot be applied in education.

However, the court orally opposed the idea, noting that virtual interaction lacked the emotional and pedagogical depth of a physical classroom. Teachers impart more than just textbook knowledge; they observe, interact and guide the students in real time, in an environment that could not be replicated on a digital platform, it said.

Justice Atul Sreedharan orally stated, "There is an environment that every institution has. That is why we go to schools/colleges—because of the environment. We had a training session in the USA, and we went to University of California, Berkeley. When I visited there, I wanted another life just to study there—you see—because of the environment. Environment matters, aura matters".

The BCI said that there had been certain instances where conducting online classes had posed significant challenges. Students were often inattentive, dressed casually, and sometimes engaged in unrelated activities. There were instances of students presenting fake screenshots to claim attendance, it was submitted.

The bench said that while online teaching had a utility in exceptional circumstances like COVID-19, it could not become the default. Classroom instruction was essential for cultivating discipline, fostering peer interactions and ensuring comprehensive training, especially in professional courses like law, it said.

The petitioner, further, attempted to draw a distinction between physical attendance and the opportunity to attend virtually in exceptional cases. It was argued that had the petitioner been offered the opportunity to attend virtual classes during her hospitalisation, her attendance would have been more than the required mandate.

However, the court responded that virtual lectures were designed as universal solutions during a crisis, not as individual accommodations. Permitting selective online attendance, the bench warned, would invite chaos, it added.

After hearing the matter for some time the court listed it on July 7.

For Petitioner: Advocates Anshuman Singh, Kaustubh Shankaer and Sahil Sonkusal

For Respondent: Advocate Sankalp Kochar and Aditya Veer Singh

Case title: Anupama Alice Minj Vs National Law Institute University, Bhopal (WP No. 970 of 2025)