Bombay HC seeks report on law colleges’ attendance compliance

The Bombay High Court is addressing this issue through a PIL filed by an associate professor of law. File pic

A Division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently directed Mumbai University and the Bar Council of India to submit an affidavit regarding the enforcement of the mandatory 75 per cent attendance for law courses, as required by UGC guidelines. Currently, this attendance requirement is reportedly not being followed.

The High Court is addressing this issue through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an associate professor of law from a suburban law college. The case will be heard again after the Diwali vacation, with the next hearing set for November 28.

mid-day first highlighted this concern in its June 3, 2023, article titled "Law colleges ignore attendance, professor sounds the alarm." Later, the UGC responded to the PIL, affirming the 75% attendance requirement in a September 5, 2024, article titled "75 percent attendance must in law colleges, UGC reaffirms."

Additional submission filed

Dr Sharmila Ghuge, an Associate Professor of Law at a suburban law college and the petitioner, presented further arguments to the court, expressing her concerns about the mandatory 75 per cent attendance requirement for both three-year and five-year law courses. She highlighted the troubling lack of action by law colleges, their principals, and the Respondents (Mumbai University and the Bar Council of India) to enforce this attendance policy, which she argued has allowed students to disregard attendance requirements. This failure to uphold the policy not only weakens the quality of legal education but also puts the professional futures of these students at risk, as they are missing essential academic benefits.

Court observation and order

Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar stated in their three-page order, "The affidavit filed by the UGC is taken on record. According to the said affidavit the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2003 mandate not only a minimum number of lectures/tutorials/seminars/practicals which the students are required to attend for eligibility to appear in the examination which shall be prescribed by the University which should not be less than 75 per cent of the total number of lectures/tutorials/seminars/practical's etc. but it also prescribes that every University enrolling the students shall ensure that the number of actual teaching days on which classes are held or conducted, is not less than 180 days in an academic year, excluding holidays and vacations. The said provisions are contained in Regulations 4.1 and 5.8, respectively, of the Regulations, 2003.

To ascertain whether the University of Mumbai has prescribed the minimum number of lectures/ tutorials/ seminars/practicals, that a student is required to attend for his/her eligibility to appear in the examination, we call upon the learned Counsel representing the University, to file an affidavit by November 14 disclosing the said information.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner tendered additional submissions which were also taken on record. The said submissions contain a Circular dated September 24 issued by the Bar Council of India, which is addressed to all the Vice Chancellors/Registrars of Universities/Centres of Legal Education, prescribing certain norms to be followed by the students which, inter alia; provides that a proof of compliance of the attendance norms as per Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education must also be provided.

"We direct the Bar Council of India to file the affidavit-in-reply by November 14. Rejoinder affidavits to the affidavits filed by the respondents may be filed by the petitioner by the next date of listing," the order read.

Petitioner speaks

Speaking to mid-day, petitioner, Dr Sharmila Ghuge, said, "I am happy to note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court took a serious note of the UGC reply filed in my PIL reiterating the significance of 75 per cent attendance criteria for students. I am looking forward to receiving the reply from the University of Mumbai and the BCI (Bar Council of India) who have delayed filling their response for several months despite the notices being issued to do so in April. Sadly, the Statutory bodies like the BCI and a parent body like the Mumbai University need to be compelled through the court to implement their own rules."