Student agitations in AMU Law Faculty go far beyond ‘attendance’ issues, reveal long-standing ailments

A SET OF TROUBLING DEVELOPMENTS have unfolded in the Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’). Over eighty final-year law students, out of a batch of just 124, have been denied their IX semester marksheets on the alleged ground of attendance shortage. This has triggered widespread protests, which have since escalated into disciplinary measures, with six students suspended through an Office Memo put out onApril 23, 2026. 

The AMU administration has justified the suspensions by alleging unruly conduct, including use of abusive language, damage to property, wrongful confinement of faculty members, and disruption of a B.Tech entrance exam which was scheduled on April 19, 2026. These allegations, serious as they are, must be subjected to a fair and impartial inquiry. However, even if one were to momentarily set aside the contested factual narrative surrounding the protests, the foundational administrative action that triggered the unrest–that is, the detention of students on grounds of attendance, raises far graver concerns.

Protest is an indispensable feature of any vibrant academic institution. However, the present agitation, along with the allegedly illegal administrative decision that precipitated it, followed by suspension, is not an isolated episode. It brings into sharp focus a deeper structural malaise afflicting the institution. 

Stand of the Protesting Students

The protesting students have raised certain issues that are legally and institutionally revealing: Does AMU, including its Academic Council, have any rule that permits detention or withholding of marksheets after students have already been allowed to appear for examinations? Students have argued that the applicable framework only contemplates debarring a student from writing examinations in cases of attendance deficiency, not retrospective detention after the fact.

They have also argued that the alleged attendance shortage is, in part, attributable to faculty absenteeism, with classes not being conducted on multiple occasions. In such circumstances, strict enforcement of attendance norms becomes inherently unfair, as students are effectively penalized for institutional lapses beyond their control.

Equally important is their contention that the university failed to ensure any transparent or periodic disclosure of attendance. There was no weekly or monthly publication, nor any timely intimation that could have enabled students to track their attendance and take corrective measures. The eventual declaration of shortage, that too, after the conduct of exams, thus operates as a retrospective penalty imposed without notice, undermining basic principles of fairness and due process.

The sequence of events reinforces these concerns. Students were permitted to complete their ninth semester exams. Their results were declared only on April 18, 2026, coinciding with the final stages of the tenth semester. It was only thereafter that more than eighty students were detained. This raises fundamental questions. 

Were students ever informed in advance that they were ineligible to sit for examinations? If not, on what basis are they now being detained? And, under what authority can a university invalidate academic participation after issuing exam hall tickets? 

Delhi High Court Judgment and Legal Position

The controversy must be situated within a binding judicial framework that appears to have been overlooked. On November 3, 2025, the Delhi High Court, in Court on Its Own Motion in Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student of IP University, addressed the consequences of rigid and punitive attendance enforcement in legal education.

The Sushant Rohilla case arose from a tragic incident. A student took his own life after being compelled to repeat a year due to attendance shortage. Recognizing the human cost of such rigid enforcement, the Court adopted a humane and reform-oriented approach and issued a set of unequivocal directions applicable to all law colleges and universities in India.

The Court categorically held that no student shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from academic progression on the ground of attendance shortage. It further clarified that institutions cannot impose attendance requirements exceeding those prescribed by the Bar Council of India.

The judgment also mandates a structured compliance framework, which includes, weekly disclosure of attendance, monthly communication with guardians, remedial classes, alternative assignments, and practical engagement through legal aid clinics. Attendance is to be calculated strictly on the basis of actual classes conducted. Even where a student falls short, detention is impermissible; at most, a marginal academic penalty may be imposed.