Bombay High Court to Hear ILS Pune Law Students' Petition Over Exam Debarment
Mumbai, May 1, 2026 — A group of law students from the Indian Law Society’s (ILS) Law College, Pune, has moved the Bombay High Court, challenging their debarment from the ongoing semester-end examinations. The students were restricted from taking the exams due to an attendance shortfall, despite maintaining more than 50% attendance and submitting valid medical documentation to explain their absence.
The matter was taken up on April 30, 2026, by a division bench comprising Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna. The court is scheduled to hear the case again on May 4, 2026. The students are seeking an interim direction to allow them to sit for their remaining examinations.
Disputed Cut-off Dates and Ordinance 70
The petition, filed through Talekar & Associates, challenges the Savitribai Phule Pune University’s refusal to condone the students' attendance shortage under University Ordinance 70. The ordinance provides that a student's attendance deficiency up to 20% may be condoned by the university's executive council in cases of bona fide illness or compelling personal circumstances beyond the candidate's control.
The students argue that the college acted arbitrarily by unilaterally setting March 14 as the cut-off date for counting attendance. This is despite the university notifying April 30 as the official term end date for the second semester. Following the publication of a preliminary list on March 18 and a final defaulters' list on March 28, the students claim they received no prior, periodic intimation regarding their deficit. They believed they would make up for the shortage by attending remaining lectures until the notified end of the term.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and Alleged Discrimination
A key argument in the petition relies on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The students highlight that ILS Law College approved their online examination forms, accepted their fees, and issued hall tickets through the university. According to the plea, this procedural acceptance created a legitimate expectation that their attendance shortfall had been condoned.
Furthermore, the petitioners have raised claims of discrimination in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They allege that three other students with attendance in the 50% to 55% bracket were granted relief after their attendance records were reworked to meet the 55% threshold.
Judicial Precedent and Broader Implications
The students' counsel cited Bar Council of India (BCI) rules and relied upon the Delhi High Court’s judgment in the Sushant Rohilla case. The decision in Sushant Rohilla cautioned educational institutions against barring law students from examinations for attendance shortages without first exploring less drastic remedial measures.
The case underscores a wider debate in legal education regarding the strict enforcement of mandatory attendance policies, especially when students have documented medical concerns. The outcome of the May 4 hearing could provide significant clarity on how university ordinances and college-level discretion intersect within Savitribai Phule Pune University.
Discription: A group of law students from ILS Law College, Pune, has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging Savitribai Phule Pune University's decision to bar them from their semester-end examinations over an attendance shortfall. The petitioners, who maintain over 50% attendance with documented medical reasons, argue that the college arbitrarily set March 14 as the attendance cut-off, despite the university's official term ending on April 30, 2026.
Furthermore, the students point out that the college accepted their exam forms, fees, and issued hall tickets, creating a legitimate expectation that their attendance deficit was condoned under University Ordinance 70. They also allege discriminatory treatment, noting that other students in a similar attendance bracket were granted relief. The students rely on Bar Council of India rules and the Sushant Rohilla precedent to argue for less drastic remedial measures instead of outright exam debarment.
