In a Writ Petition filed by a 5th semester law student from Shillong law college, seeking condonation for a shortfall in the mandatory 70% attendance required to appear for the end semester examinations. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew of the Meghalaya High Court has denied the grant of the relief sought. The Court referred to Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which permits condonation only up to 65%, whereas the petitioner had attended just 60% of the classes.

The Rule 12 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, stipulates that:

“12. End Semester Test. 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. 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 together. The similar power shall rest the Vice Chancellor or Director of a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.”

The petitioner, represented by Mr. P. Yobin, argued that the shortfall was due to legitimate medical reasons, including an operation undergone in November 2024, supported by medical certificates and related documentation annexed to the writ petition.

Per contrary, The Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, the Principal of Shillong Law College, submitted that while the petitioner’s case may appear genuine, the college is obligated to adhere to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. He pointed out that these rules allow for condonation of attendance shortfall only up to 65% in individual subjects and 70% overall. Since the petitioner has attended only 60% of the classes, he argued that the petitioner has not met the eligibility criteria to appear for the examinations under the prescribed rules.

The college maintained that, despite the genuineness of the student’s circumstances it was bound by the Legal Education rules, 2008.

Thus, affirming the contention submitted by the Respondent, the bench deemed that the student was ineligible to take the exams.

The court acknowledged the student’s difficulty but noted that the lack of required attendance was an undisputed fact. Underlining the binding nature of rule 12, the court ruled that it was unable to grant relief, thereby dismissing the petition.

Case Title: Shri Bamang Nabam Versus North Eastern Hills University (NEHU) & Ors.

Advocate For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv. with Ms. B. Ramsiej, Adv.

Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 1-3) Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with Mr. E. Laloo, Adv. (For R 4)