Calcutta High Court lets law student with severe football injury clear semesters despite attendance shortfall

The petitioner, a B.Com. LL.B. student, suffered a serious abdominal injury while playing in a University football tournament in November 2023.

His attendance in the sixth semester was 60.98%, below the 65% threshold for B.A.-LL.B. and B.Com.-LL.B. students under the University’s attendance regulations.

The University rejected his request for condonation, citing the attendance shortfall, the delay in applying, and the absence of timely medical documentation.

After earlier proceedings and interim orders permitting him to attend later semesters and sit examinations, the petitioner challenged the rejection and sought publication of his results and completion of the course.

1. Whether the University was justified in refusing to condone the petitioner’s sixth-semester attendance shortfall, having regard to his serious injury, its after-effects, and the delayed submission of his medical documents.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief concerning progression through subsequent semesters and publication of examination results withheld during the proceedings.

The Court considered sections 31(XVI) of the St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata Act, 2016, under which the University’s Executive Council framed its regulations, and Regulations 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Regulation 3.4.1 requires 75% attendance; Regulation 3.4.2 permits students in the specified attendance range—including a minimum of 65% for B.A.-LL.B. and B.Com.-LL.B. students—to seek approval on grounds including illness, subject to stated procedural requirements and limits on condonation.

The Court recognised the importance of enforcing attendance requirements in professional legal education, while holding that withholding progression must not operate as punishment and that a delay in submitting a leave application or medical certificate need not be fatal where illness is supported by medical evidence.

It also relied on University of Calcutta v. Amit Jalan for the importance of attendance and discipline in legal education.

The Court accepted that the attendance rules served an important educational purpose and that the University was generally required to follow them.

However, it distinguished illness from participation in extracurricular activities: medical evidence from an independent professional could substantiate illness even where the student had not complied strictly with the specified filing deadlines.

The petitioner’s serious injury, hospitalisation, subsequent treatment, and continuing after-effects provided an exceptional medical basis for his absences; the University was not entitled to dismiss those effects merely by relying on a technical delay or disputing their medical significance.

In those circumstances, the Court found the refusal to grant relief unjustified.

It directed that he not be debarred from clearing the semester in question or progressing to the next semester on attendance grounds; that unpublished results for the relevant and subsequent semesters be published promptly, with any unevaluated scripts evaluated; and that, upon completion of the course, the University issue the petitioner’s certificates, mark sheets, and other relevant documents without delay.

The University’s request for a stay was rejected.