The rule that broke the student: Attendance, anxiety and what must change

The recent order in Re: Suicide of Sushant Rohilla has changed the tone of legal education in a quiet but decisive way. A Bench led by Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma did something simple: they listened.

They listened to what happens to a student when a rule becomes a wall they cannot climb. They noted that forcing a student out of exams for low attendance can push a young mind to the edge. They said that this approach leads to "extreme consequence", especially for students already struggling. The Court held,

“Barring the student from sitting in an examination cannot even be the last resort…considering the debilitating consequences for the student including mental health and career prospects.”

The judges described learning law as something that happens in many places. In class, yes, but also in moot courts, internships, legal aid work, court corridors, even in late-night group study rooms. They observed that these experiences matter. They give shape to a lawyer's sense of voice, judgment and responsibility. They stated that without space for these, the student may feel 'frustrated' and incomplete.

So, the Court changed the rules of consequence. Colleges can no longer stop a student from writing an exam just because the attendance shows a shortfall. No holding back. No lost semester. The most a college may do is reduce grades by up to 5% or by 0.33 on a CGPA scale.

This may seem like a technical adjustment. It is not. It is a shift in how institutions measure commitment. Instead of punishment, the focus now turns to support. The Court instructed colleges to share attendance updates regularly, contact families if needed, hold extra classes, assign substitute work and recognise court visits or legal aid activities as part of learning.

Equally meaningful is the direction to restructure grievance bodies. Student voices can no longer sit in the room as guests. They most hold at least half the seats. Grievance committees must include counsellors and mental health workers as part of their ordinary working structure.

We have seen this sorrow before. In different cities, in different lecture halls. A young law student at Amity Law School, Sushant Rohilla, who was pushed to the edge by attendance notices that felt more like threats than guidance. Then at IIT Delhi, and again at IIT Kharagpur, where families said they lost their children to pressure that kept tightening without pause. And most recently, in Amit Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court responded to the pain running through campuses across the country, speaking of students who felt unseen and unheard. Soon after, the Delhi High Court stepped in with a clear message in the Rohilla case: learning cannot come at the cost of a student's mind. If the rule begins to break the student, the rule has to change.

This article moves through these moments, not to recount tragedy for its own sake, but to understand what these losses show us about care, responsibility and the quiet weight that settles on students when institutions forget they are dealing with living hearts.

In the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Amit Kumar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, the ethical standing of Indian academic institutions were weighed, and deemed wanting. The Court held,

“Universities are not just centres of learning but institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students.”

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared resilient regulatory action as a means to address the spate of devastating suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs), including renowned institutions like IIT Delhi, IIMs and NITs. The judges recognised an ongoing trend of persistent neglectful behaviour.

The suit was brought by the families of two deceased IIT Delhi undergraduates who reportedly committed suicide as a result of pressure from academia and caste-based prejudicial behaviour. The families cited both institution-wide intimidation plus the dearth of formal complaint proceedings through law enforcement agencies.

The Supreme Court noted that university campus suicides are not isolated tragic events but rather signs of a larger ill: of ragging, socioeconomic and gender prejudice, pressure from academia, sexual misconduct, tribal exclusion and monetary stress. It described these fatalities as "grim reminders of the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the existing legal and institutional framework."

The Court ordered the immediate onset of a National Task Force, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice S Ravindra Bhat alongside nine experts in the field, to look into the psychological healthcare ecosystem across HEIs and to suggest fundamental, policy and legal changes. This action revealed both a sense of urgency and empathetic thinking.

In Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla again rekindled a long-standing debate on the emotional toll that strict educational environments take. The Delhi High Court delivered an uncompromising assessment of the feasibility of strict mandatory attendance imposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Court directed BCI's Legal Education Committee to research global requirements and provide an analysis, underscoring the crucial need for an updated assessment of these requirements. Justice Singh held,

“Such an inflexible approach is bound to have a cascading effect, thereby resulting in extreme consequences to students.”

The Court also expressed worry about the wider ecology concerning educational wellbeing. The University Grants Commission (UGC) received instructions to make certain that all HEIs set up competent Student Grievance Redressal Committees (SGRCs). Legal concerns were raised over the accountability and integrity of institutional answers when the Ministry of Education received criticism for failing to submit an exhaustive record of results, despite having started stakeholders engagements.

Highlighting the requirement for both ethical obligation and compliance with the law, the High Court also asked Amity Law School to clarify if it sought to offer ex-gratia compensation to family members of the recently deceased undergraduate as part of this larger investigation.

This Court ruling comes after similar devastating incidents, including the tragic passing of three undergraduates at National Law University, Delhi. Aditya Singh Tomar approached the Delhi High Court seeking the formation of an impartial expert panel to look into suicides among students and the implementation of a UGC-compliant psychological wellness policy. The case highlighted the critical requirement for institutional reflection, mental health infrastructure and regulatory clarity in elite legal education institutions. The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, citing "adequate steps" taken by the University for the present.

Whilst the courts in several nations have laid down crucial constraints on university accountability, recent developments in law and legislative initiatives indicate a compelling moral requirement for universities to go past simply conforming to regulations in order to actively foster suicide-safer settings.

The in loco parentis concept was strongly dismissed by the Massachusetts Judicial Court in its 2018 decision in Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which held that "universities are not clinics... their duty arises only when risk manifests through explicit words or deeds."

This verdict emphasises the restricted legal boundaries of negligence by stating that colleges are only under an obligation when they have substantial knowledge of a student's suicide thinking or past attempts. It also put stress on institutions to develop adaptable mechanisms that identify such possibilities early. A broader worldwide trend towards proactive prevention is reflected in this court's position.

There is a worldwide effort to make educational institutions safer for students, going past simply adhering to regulations and offering ethical assistance. The Connecting for Life approach of Ireland's National Student Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Framework institutionalises lethal means limitation, management accountability, cross-sector cooperation and financial projections of psychological wellness resources.

Redefining psychological well-being as an economical and ethical goal requires carrying out universal mental health evaluation at student orientation. This is further supported by the UK's Suicide- Safer Universities project, which incorporates cooperative duty across campus positions by requiring gatekeeper training, postvention protocols, NHS-linked hotlines and academic leniency after a crisis. The Zero Suicide Framework in the United States recognises that initiatives must be in line with the everyday experiences of distinct pupils and uses grassroots efforts assistance and customised safety planning to provide culturally competent continuity of care.

The setting up of a National Task Force on Student Suicides by the Supreme Court of India reflects the evolution and indicates a policy emphasis on institutional reform. Although judicial rulings such as Nguyen v. MIT establish baseline legal responsibilities linked to genuine risk awareness, responsible management has to go farther. There must be integration of psychological wellness into institutional values, development and teaching.

Himanshu Mishra and Prakhar Jha are third-year and fifth-year students respectively at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.