In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed the issue of attendance requirements in higher education, underscoring the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in academic regulations. The case involved K. Shrish, a second-year Bachelor of Commerce student at SRM Institute of Science and Technology, who sought judicial intervention after being barred from examinations due to insufficient attendance.
Background of the Case
K. Shrish faced academic penalties after failing to meet the mandatory attendance threshold stipulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC mandates a minimum of 75% attendance for students to be eligible to appear for examinations, with a provision allowing institutions to condone a shortage up to 10% under specific circumstances. Despite this leniency, Shrish's attendance fell short, leading the university to deny him permission to sit for his third-semester exams and subsequently remove his name from the institution's rolls.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
Challenging the university's decision, Shrish filed a petition seeking directives to allow him to participate in the examinations and continue his studies for the academic year 2024-25. He contended that rigid enforcement of attendance norms, without considering individual circumstances, was unjust. In support of his plea, Shrish referenced a prior decision by the Madras High Court, suggesting that the strict application of rules should be tempered with compassion in deserving cases.
However, the university maintained that its actions were in strict compliance with UGC regulations. The institution argued that condoning attendance beyond the permissible limit would undermine academic standards and set a precarious precedent.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The division bench, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice C. Kumarappan, deliberated on the matter, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established academic norms. The court observed that while empathy towards students is essential, it should not come at the cost of compromising educational standards.
The bench noted that the earlier judgment cited by Shrish was context-specific and could not be generalized as a precedent for all cases involving attendance shortages. The court asserted that academic regulations, especially those framed by expert bodies like the UGC, are instituted to maintain educational quality and discipline. Interference in such matters, the court opined, would not only be inappropriate but could also demoralize students who consistently adhere to attendance requirements.
In its judgment, the court stated:
"It has been repeatedly held that in academic matters, this Court will not interfere and leave it to the wisdom of the academicians. The UGC Regulation requires a particular percentage of attendance, and if a student does not possess that percentage of attendance, the only result could be that the student cannot appear for the examination. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the University, if this Court chooses to sympathize with such students, it will be misplaced sympathy and would amount to mocking students who attended the classes regularly."
Consequently, the court dismissed Shrish's appeal, upholding the university's decision to enforce the attendance criteria strictly.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on non-interference in academic policies, especially those designed to uphold educational standards. It sends a clear message that while individual hardships are acknowledged, they cannot override collective regulations that ensure the integrity and quality of education.
The judgment also highlights the responsibility of students to comply with institutional requirements and the limited scope of judicial relief in cases of self-inflicted academic deficiencies.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court's decision in this case underscores the delicate balance between empathy for individual students and the necessity to maintain rigorous academic standards. By upholding the university's enforcement of attendance requirements, the court has affirmed the principle that educational institutions possess the autonomy to implement and uphold policies essential for academic excellence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.