Author
THE Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a public interest litigation(PIL) eking the mandatory enforcement of 75% attendance requirement for law students in colleges affiliated with Mumbai University (MU) comes as a major relief for law students across the state.
The PIL filed by Sharmila Ghuge, [Sharmila Ghuge v. Mumbai University & Ors] , a faculty member at a law college, had filed the plea to bring attention to what she described as a persistent issue of students neglecting classes in favour of long-term internships at law firms.
Declining to pass any such directions the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and MS Karnik, observed that the petitioner failed to provide hard facts/ details backing her claim that students were being permitted to appear for examinations despite not meeting the minimum attendance criteria.
"We find that the petitioner has not given any particulars of the colleges nor the students who are being allowed to appear in exams without following the mandatory attendance … Petitioner who is also an employee in a law college has not even divulged data about her own college … In absence of material particulars, we are not inclined to entertain the petition," the Court stated.
In response, the petitioner explained that she had been unable to access such data because authorities had refused to provide the information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The Court, however, advised that an RTI appeal should be filed in such cases.
"This can't be a roving enquiry," the Bench remarked, emphasizing that it could not proceed without specific evidence.
However, the Court did leave the door open for future legal action, granting the petitioner the liberty to return with the necessary supporting information and documents.
Ghuge, a faculty member at a law college, had filed the PIL to bring attention to what she described as a persistent issue of students neglecting classes in favour of long-term internships at law firms.
"Many students fail to meet the mandatory 75% attendance mark as stipulated by in ordinance 6086 of MU. The low attendance is primarily because of students interning with law firms or being employed while pursuing their law degrees, compounded by the lack of action on the part of law colleges and university authorities to enforce attendance requirements," the petition argued.
Back in April 2024, the then Chief Justice DK Upadhyay (currently Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court) had directed the Mumbai University, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to respond to the matter.
Ghuge alleged a "widespread violation" of the attendance norms across Mumbai’s law colleges and sought directions for MU to implement the mandatory attendance rule more strictly.
Filed through advocate Shyam Dewani, the plea also claimed that student attendance drastically falls over the weeks: from 50% in the first week to 30% in the second, and just 10% by the third week of the academic year.
In addition to enforcement, the petition urged the BCI to consider introducing a structured long-term internship program to motivate students to attend lectures. Ghuge also requested that MU be directed to take disciplinary measures against students and institutions consistently breaching attendance norms, along with regular inspections and reviews of affiliated law colleges.
