Akshat Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

students of B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) integrated five years course in respondent- Himachal Pradesh National Law University. Both the petitioners were pursuing 7^th Semester in December, 2025. Petitioner in CWP No.19747/2025, Akshat Singh had 57.29% attendance in the semester and the petitioner in CWP No.19748/2025, Akshit Ahlawat had 39.88% attendance. Due to shortage in the attendance, the respondent- University did not permit the petitioners to appear in end-term examination of 7^th Semester and detained them in the 7^th Semester in terms of Annexure P- 8 dated 06.12.2025. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners instituted these writ petitions.

¶30

2(i). Under interim order passed on 12.12.2025 in these writ petitions, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the end-term examination of 7^th Semester held in December, 2025 subject to their depositing an amount of ₹50,000/- each in the Registry of this Court. Such permission was not to create any equity in petitioners’ favour. Further, the respondents were directed not to declare the result of the petitioners without leave of the Court. The order reads as under:-

¶31

“Notice in above terms. In the meanwhile, applicant/petitioner shall be allowed in the 7th Semester End-Term Examinations commencing

¶32

3

¶33

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶34

from 15.12.2025, subject to his paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Registry of this Court. It is clarified that the permission which is being given to the petitioner to participate in the examination shall not create any equity in his favour. The result of the petitioner shall not be declared without the leave of the Court.”

¶35

2(ii). Pursuant to above, both the petitioners deposited an amount of ₹50,000/- each in the Registry of this Court and appeared in the end-term examination of 7^th Semester. The result of end-term examination of 7^th Semester was produced before this Court on 10.03.2026. In terms of the result, both the petitioners have passed end-term examination of 7^th Semester. Looking at the result, petitioners under order dated 20.03.2026 were allowed to provisionally attend classes of 8^th Semester with the rider that attending classes of 8^th Semester will not create any rights or equities in their favour. Petitioners’ attending 8^th Semester classes was to abide by the outcome of the main writ petitions.

¶36

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention to Rule 12 Chapter II Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, whereunder minimum 70% of classes held in the concerned subject are required to be attended for appearing in end semester test in the subject. In terms of proviso thereof, if a student for any exceptional reasons

¶37

4

¶38

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶39

fails to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, discretion is vested in the Competent Authority to allow the student to take the test if the concerned student had attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% classes in all the subjects taken together. The said rule reads as under:-

¶40

“12. End Semester Test

¶41

No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the subject taken together.

¶42

Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal Education, as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in all the subjects taken on together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.

¶43

Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be forwarded to the Bar Council of India.”

¶44

Reference was also made to following Rule 10

¶45

of the aforesaid Rules to contend that respondentUniversity was required to hold around 400 classes in the 7^th Semester. whereas it had held only 215 classes

¶46

5

¶47

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶48

thereby depriving the petitioners to complete their

¶49

attendance:-

¶50

“10. Semester system

¶51

The course leading to either degree in law, unitary or on integrated double degree shall be conducted in semester system in not less than 15 weeks for unitary degree course or not less than 18 weeks in double degree integrated course with not less than 30 class-hours per week including tutorials, moot room exercise and seminars provided there shall be at least 24 lecture hours per week.

¶52

Provided further that in case of specialized and/or honours law courses there shall be not less than 36 class-hours per week including seminar, moot court and tutorial classes and 30 minimum lecture hours per week.

¶53

Provided further that Universities are free to adopt trimester system with appropriate division of courses per trimester with each of the trimester not less than 12 weeks.”

¶54

4. Admittedly, Akshat Singh had the attendance percentage of 57.29% whereas that of Akshat Ahlawat was 39.88%, out of total classes held in the 7^th semester by the respondent-University. Learned counsel for the respondent- University submitted that aforesaid percentage of the classes attended by both the petitioners has been computed by excluding the lectures which were though held but the petitioners might not have attended on account of their suspension/ late admission. Though no justification has been offered by the respondent- University for not holding all the classes in

¶55

6

¶56

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶57

terms of Clause 10, learned counsel for the respondentUniversity submits that its curriculum is approved by Bar Council of India and therefore, it is not required to hold number of classes in terms of Clause 10 of the aforesaid Rules and the respondent-University is governed by its own set of admission and examination regulations framed under H.P. National Law University Act, 2016. This is disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, even under the rules and regulations cited by respondent-University as applicable to them, it was required to conduct much more classes that actually held by it. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that from the provisional list Annexure P-6 dated 04.12.2025 prepared by the respondents of several candidates having less than requisite attendance, the respondents had shortlisted only eight candidates including the petitioners for detention, remaining students were allowed to appear in their respective examinations. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners raised the issue of discrimination allegedly meted out to the petitioners.

¶58

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Courts on its own motion in Re:

¶59

7

¶60

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶61

Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, Law Student

¶62

of I.P. University versus …….² , more particularly upon one of the directions issued in para 249 therein to the effect that “no student entered 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.” Reference was also made to Ms. Muskaan Aamir versus Union of India and another³ , which is primarily based upon Sushant Rohilla² . Attention was also invited to Adarsh Raj Singh versus Bar Council of India and others⁴ . Learned counsel for the respondent- University submitted that Adarsh Raj Singh⁴ was assailed in University of Delhi and Others versus Adarsh Raj Singh & another⁵ and the Hon’ble Division Bench held therein that order shall not be treated as a precedent as it was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case based upon undertaking and concession given by the University. It has not been disputed for the respondents that there were only 215 number of classes

¶63

2W.P.(CRL)793/2017, decided on 3.11.2025, by Delhi High Court.

¶64

3W.P.(C) No.13273/2025 & connected matters, decided on 15.01.2026, by Delhi High Court.

¶65

4W.P.(C) No.5062/2018 & connected matters, decided on 06.07.2018, by Delhi High Court.

¶66

52018 SCC Online Del 10781

¶67

8

¶68

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶69

held in the 7^th Semester. Learned Senior Counsel for the

¶70

petitioners has raised an issue that such number of classes in all held by the respondent- University was not in consonance with applicable Rules & Regulations though this is very strongly refuted by learned counsel for the respondents. According to the respondents, petitioners did not adhere to the prescribed academic discipline and no circumstance existed in petitioners’ favour for exercise of any discretion in their favour. Respondents have inter alia pleaded that “had the shortage of attendance not been willful and deliberate, requisite relief would have been granted to the petitioners.”

¶71

Another aspect highlighted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is about holding of remedial classes by the respondent- University in similar circumstances for the students detained in previous years on account of shortage of lecturers to enable them to have requisite attendance and absence of any remedial classes having been held in the 7^th Semester for the petitioners. Reference in this regard was made to certain documents on record. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also emphasized that petitioners have already been permitted though provisionally to undertake 07^th Semester end-term examination in terms of interim orders

¶72

9

¶73

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶74

passed in these writ petitions subject to certain conditions; The petitioners have fulfilled those conditions and appeared in the 7^th Semester end-term examination held in December, 2025; The petitioners despite shortfall in attendance have also passed 7^th Semester end-term examinations, therefore, the impugned detention orders in their cases are required to be quashed and set-aside.

¶75

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioners as also, all the grounds taken by them. However, at this stage, I am of the view that since the petitioners had been permitted to provisionally undertake the 7^th Semester end-term examination, which the petitioners have not only undertaken but cleared as well & the petitioner are now attending classes of 8^th Semester, keeping in view the issues highlighted for the petitioners about absence of remedial classes for them in 7^th Semester, reliance placed for the petitioners upon several decisions of different High Courts as also, the applicable rules position, ground of discrimination raised by them, interest of justice will be met in the given facts of the case if a direction is issued to respondent- Himachal Pradesh National Law University to reconsider its decision of detention of the petitioners in 7^th Semester, afresh, and

¶76

10

¶77

( 2026:HHC:16047 )

¶78

for allowing them to regularly attend 8^th Semester classes. Ordered accordingly. Fresh decision be taken expeditiously preferably within four weeks keeping in view not only applicable rules position but also keeping in mind the academic interest of the students. The decision so taken be also intimated to the petitioners. Till such time, the petitioners be permitted to continue to attend the classes of 8^th Semester.

¶79

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶80

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 12, 2026 Judge yogesh

Akshat Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshat Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Pal Aggarwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Makholi Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mahender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Priya Saklani and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Verma and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Chopra Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another