The Delhi High Court announced its intention to form a committee to review the attendance system for undergraduate and graduate students. Concerns over students’ mental health in higher education institutions have prompted this action. The court wants to reevaluate the need for stringent attendance regulations. The court takes this step to balance the demands of the classroom and students’ mental health.
The Court expressed the need to review the attendance system rules and regulations. It questioned whether attendance should even be mandatory or if there should be a minimum standard. There may be better approaches than the current system of penalties for missing attendance. Rather than penalising pupils for missing class, the Court recommended looking into measures to motivate them to come. This change in perspective may result in a more encouraging atmosphere that prioritises encouragement above rigorous regulations.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, noted that the court plans to establish a committee to review the attendance system. This committee’s goal is to investigate different aspects of attendance requirements for graduate and undergraduate programs. The findings of the committee will be the basis for a report that the court will create. This report would aid in the creation of uniform procedures for controlling attendance in various educational programs.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Rajesh Yadav appeared for the respondents. The court took up the matter of reviewing attendance policies in universities and higher education institutions. The unfortunate event that occurred in August 2016, when a legal student from Delhi’s Amity Legal School committed suicide, served as the impetus for this review. Concerns concerning the effect of rigorous attendance policies on kids’ mental health were brought up in this instance.
The case began with a letter sent to Tirath Singh Thakur, the then Chief Justice of India, on August 20, 2016, by a friend of the victim. According to the acquaintance, Rohilla’s low attendance led to harassment from his college and several staff members. It is said that Rohilla’s terrible decision to end his own life was influenced by this torture. The letter also emphasised the mental strain that a lot of college and university students face. It emphasised the need for attention to this significant issue by pointing out the psychological toll that harassment by authorities and instructors may have on students.
After acknowledging the letter, the Supreme Court assigned senior counsel F.S. Nariman to assist with the matter. However, the matter was transferred to the Delhi High Court in March 2017. Since then, several hearings have taken place. These hearings have involved different parties, such as universities, regulatory bodies, and the Bar Council of India.
The main issue that the Court is now debating is whether or not undergraduate and graduate courses should still need attendance. This discussion is prompted by the notable shifts in instructional strategies, especially the emergence of online learning in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic. The Court also observed that younger people are becoming increasingly concerned to review the attendance system. They appear to have a quite different interpretation of the condition than the conventional wisdom.
The Court noted that in places where access to technology is inconsistent, such as rural and urban locations, attendance regulations may vary. The Court recommended promoting good attendance instead of penalising pupils for poor attendance by denying them access to tests. To establish reasonable attendance rules, the Court further underlined the importance of consulting with educators and students. It recommended a more thorough examination to reevaluate whether attendance requirements should even be mandatory.
Thus, in order to assist in developing its final recommendations, the Court has instructed the Union Ministry of Education, the National Medical Commission (NMC), and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). September 9, 2024, is the date set by the High Court for this case’s subsequent hearing.
