Delhi HC’s Sushant Rohilla decision invites a rethinking of legal education’s aim

ON NOVEMBER 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of I.P. University. This case originated from a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court in 2016 after a young law student, Sushant Rohilla, tragically took his own life. His death was reportedly linked to the fact that he had been barred from sitting for his semester examinations due to a shortage of attendance.

The Delhi High Court, while acknowledging the gravity of this incident, took the opportunity to reflect upon the structural and institutional issues within universities that often contribute to student distress. The Court issued important directions to the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’), observing that rigid and mechanical attendance rules must not obstruct a student’s academic or professional progress. It held that:

“No student enrolled in any recognized law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.”

The Court further directed that no law college or university shall prescribe attendance norms exceeding those mandated by the BCI under the Legal Education Rules. Importantly, it emphasized that academic participation should not be limited to classroom presence alone. Activities such as moot courts, debates, internships, social activism, and field research are integral to a law student’s learning experience and must be duly recognized as part of attendance requirements.

This judgment has stirred two important debates within the legal education community: 

First, does this judgment of the Delhi High Court have effect beyond the National Capital Territory of Delhi? In other words, can it be applied in other states such as Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, or Rajasthan?

Second, and perhaps more crucially, does this judgment invite law schools to introspect on why students often disengage from classroom learning? Is there a deeper pedagogical crisis that we must confront?

Can the Delhi High Court’s Judgment apply nationally?

At first glance, one might assume that a High Court’s judgment applies only within its territorial jurisdiction. However, Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India expands this view. It provides that the power of a High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs extends to any government, authority, or person within or beyond its territory, provided that the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its jurisdiction.

More importantly, when a High Court interprets or issues directions concerning a central law or statutory body created under a central act, such judgments have persuasive or even binding influence across India until set aside by the Supreme Court or another High Court with contrary reasoning.

There are several precedents supporting this understanding:

1. Shiv Kumar v. Union of India (2014) – The Karnataka High Court observed that the Kerala High Court’s judgment declaring Section 10(A)(i) of the Indian Divorce Act unconstitutional had effect beyond Kerala, since it pertained to a central statute.