The Bombay High Court on Thursday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought strict enforcement of the 75% attendance rule in law colleges affiliated with Mumbai University (MU), citing lack of specific evidence to support the claims.
The PIL, filed by law faculty member Sharmila Ghuge, alleged that a large number of law students in Mumbai were skipping classes to pursue permanent internships at law firms, thereby violating mandatory attendance norms laid down in ordinance 6086 of Mumbai University.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik refused to issue any directive, observing that the petition lacked essential data. “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,” the Court said. “Petitioner who is also an employee in a law college has not even divulged data about her own college.”
In response to the petitioner’s explanation that authorities had denied information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Court advised pursuing an RTI appeal. “This can’t be a roving enquiry,” the Bench remarked, adding that the Court could not delve into the issue without sufficient supporting material.
The plea, filed through advocate Shyam Dewani, highlighted a disturbing trend, claiming that “in the first week of an academic year, only 50 percent of newly admitted students attend the lectures, which decreases to around 30 percent in the second week and finally only 10 percent students remain by the third week.”
The petition called for directions to Mumbai University, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to ensure enforcement of the 75% attendance rule. It also requested disciplinary measures against non-compliant students and institutions and proposed that BCI consider long-term internship frameworks that don’t compromise classroom learning.
The Court, however, granted Ghuge the liberty to re-approach once substantial evidence is obtained. “In absence of material particulars, we are not inclined to entertain the petition,” the Court concluded.
In April 2024, the previous bench led by then Chief Justice DK Upadhyay had sought responses from MU, BCI, and UGC on the issue, acknowledging its seriousness.
With the dismissal of this PIL, the issue of low attendance among law students due to internships remains unaddressed at the judicial level — for now.
Case: Sharmila Ghuge vs Mumbai University & Ors – Available on LAWFYI.IO
