Bombay High Court
UNNATI RAWATversusTHE PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT INDIAN LAW SOCIETY LA COLLEGE AND
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the college’s refusal to condone attendance below the mandatory 55% threshold is lawful and dismissed the petition.
Summary
Ms Unnati Rawat, a first‑year LLB student at ILS Law College, Pune, sought a court order to condone her 45% attendance for the 2025‑26 academic year on humanitarian grounds, as she was the primary caretaker for her father undergoing prostate‑cancer surgery. The college, governed by the Pune University Act, 1974, requires at least 75% attendance, with a maximum condonable shortfall of 20% (i.e., a minimum of 55% attendance) under Ordinances 68 and 70. The petitioner argued that denial violated her right to education under Article 14 and relied on a Delhi High Court decision that attendance should not bar examination. The court examined the statutory provisions, noted that the petitioner’s attendance fell short of the 55% threshold, and observed that the medical documents were not submitted to the college. Applying the earlier Bombay High Court decision in Shivprasad Hiralal Salunke (2012), the court held that the college’s refusal was lawful and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the college can be compelled to condone attendance deficiency below the statutory 55% on humanitarian grounds.
- Whether denial of examination rights violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Delhi High Court judgment cited is applicable to the present facts.
Subjects
- attendance condonation
- right to education
- Article 14
- humanitarian grounds
- Pune University regulations
- examination eligibility
Judgment
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
1 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Date: 2026.01.20
11:00:53 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 739 OF 2026
Ms. Unnati Rawat ...Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Management Indian Law Society
(ILS) Law College And Ors. ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Shubham Yadav a/w Mr. Sanket Dhawan, Sumit Chaudhary i/b. Pankaj
Purway for the Petitioner.
Mr. shailendra Kanetkar a/w Shubham Suryawanshi, for the Respondent.
-----------------
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to
Respondent No.1 – ILS Law College, Pune to condone the Petitioner’s
shortage of attendance for the First Year L.L.B. (Three Years Course) for the
Academic Year 2025-26 and permit the Petitioner to appear in the ensuing
Semester-I examinations conducted under the Respondent No.2- University,
treating the Petitioner as regular student for all purposes.
2. The Petitioner is a first year student of ILS Law College, Pune who is
seeking indulgence of this Court to allow her to appear for Semester-I
examinations conducted by the Respondent No.2 – University.
3. The relevant facts are as under:-
(i) The Petitioner has secured admission in ILS Law College,
Pune on 30 October 2025.
Pallavi 1/8
2 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
(ii) The Petitioner absented from the College due to her
father’s Prostate Cancer Surgery and post-operative care
on 2 November 2025.
(iii) The Respondent No.1 – College issued defaulter list of
students who have not maintained the minimum
percentage of required lectures in the Respondent No.1 –
College and the Petitioner’s name was also mentioned as a
defaulter in the said list. The attendance of the Petitioner
is 45% and she is at Sr. No.14 of the defaulter list of 27
students which is titled as ‘Whose Examination Forms are
withdrawn for not complying with the attendance
requirement’.
(iv) The Petitioner made several applications to the Director,
Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor to condone the
Petitioner’s attendance as the Petitioner’s father
underwent a surgery and the Petitioner was the primary
caretaker of her father. The Respondent No.1 – College
not having condoned the attendance of the Petitioner
which the Petitioner sought to justify on humanitarian
grounds and the aforementioned difficulties faced by the
Petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Shubham Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
has referred to the medical report mentioning the status of the Petitioner’s
father (annexed at Exh.-D to the Petition). This shows that the Petitioner’s
father was suffering from Prostate Cancer. The Petitioner also relies on copy
of the Discharge Summary issued by the Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital
Pallavi 2/8
3 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
showing admission date of 6 October 2025 and discharge date of 12
October 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also stated that on account
of the Petitioner being the primary caretaker of her father, there was a
shortage of attendance in the Respondent No.1 – College and for which she
had to remain absent from the College classes for the period 30 September
2025 to 27 October 2025 and also in November 2025. The Petitioner was
again compelled to return home i.e. from 20 November 2025 to 24
November 2025 to take care of her father in view of his continuing medical
condition.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to several
applications made for condonation of her shortage of attendance including
application dated 15 December 2025 to the Director of Examination of
Board of Respondent No.1 – College and applications dated 15 December
2025 and 16 December 2025 to the Vice Chancellor of Respondent No.1 -
College in which the Petitioner has presented her case to be considered on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds to condone the shortfall in
attendance and permit the Petitioner to appear for the forthcoming
examination.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the
Respondent No.1 - College has violated the Petitioner’s right to education
and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India for denial of
Pallavi 3/8
4 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
examination opportunity despite genuine and medical hardship which
amounts to arbitrary and unequal treatment. This prevents her from
exercising her right to education by denying her examination access
without considering her plea on humanitarian grounds.
8. The Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in
Suo Motu Writ Petition (CRL.) No.793 of 2017 and Criminal Misc.
Application Nos.16639 of 2017, 8850 of 2024 wherein Delhi High Court
has held that no student enrolled 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.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has accordingly
submitted that the indulgence of this Court be shown and that the
Petitioner may be allowed to appear for ensuing Semester-I examinations
conducted under Respondent No.2 – University by the Respondent No.1-
College, by treating the Petitioner as regular student for all purposes.
10. Mr. Kanetkar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 -
College has placed reliance upon the Ordinance of University of Pune issued
under the provisions of Pune University Act, 1974 and in particular,
Ordinances 68 and 70 which provides as under:-
“Ο. 68. For keeping a term in any Class in a College/University
Department/ Recognised Institution, a student shall attend at
least 75% of lectures delivered per term, in case of a
Pallavi 4/8
5 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
Course/Courses where under keeping separate terms is
prescribed, whereas in case of a Course where the terms have
to be kept consecutively, 75% attedance at the lectures shall
be calculated for both the terms at the end of the Second
Term. Besides, the requirements for sessional work,
performance thereat and attendance therein and other
requirements as prescribed by the respective Board of
University Teaching and Research and/or any other
University authority or body, as the case may be, shall have to
be satisfied for earning the terms.
O. 70. The Executive Council may on account of bonafied illness, or
any other compelling reasons beyond the control of the
candidates, condone the shortage of attendance by 20% at
the maximum on the recommendations of the Discipline
Committees in case of the Post-Graduate Courses and the
Principals of the Colleges in case of the Under-graduate
Courses.”
11. Mr. Kanetkar has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in
Shivprasad Hiralal Salunke vs. The Principal, ILS Law College, Pune (Writ
Petition No.3097 of 2012) order dated 4 April 2012 has taken a view that
considering the aforementioned Ordinances, the Executive Council is
permitted to condone deficiencies in attendance provided that the
maximum period, which can be condoned by the Executive Council does
not exceed 20%.
12. Mr. Kanetkar has submitted that it is evident, from the
aforementioned decision and Ordinance that the Executive Council can
condone the delay in attendance of a student and allow him to appear in
examination, provided the student has attended at least 55% of the lectures
in the whole year, but could not attend the remaining lectures, on account
of bonafide reasons or those beyond his control.
Pallavi 5/8
6 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
13. We find from the aforementioned case, that the Petitioner was found
to have attended lectures only upto 51% in the whole year. The Division
Bench of this Court held that the Executive Council had no authority to
condone the shortfall beyond 20% of the maximum attendance and that no
fault could be found with decision of the University in rejecting the request
of the Petitioner to allow him to appear in the ensuing examination. The
Petition was accordingly dismissed. So also, in the present case, we
sympathize with the Petitioner who claims that in view of her father being a
Cancer patient and the Petitioner being a primary caretaker, could not
comply with the condonable attendance requirement as stipulated under
the Ordinance of the University of Pune (supra).
14. However, it is pertinent to note as submitted by Mr. Kanetkar that the
documents which have been relied upon by the Petitioner in the Petition,
which includes the medical reports of her father and Discharge Summary of
the concerned Hospital were never provided to the Respondent No.1 –
College. Such fact is not disputed by the Petitioner. On the contrary, it
appears that there is only an Application to the Respondent No.1 - College
for submission of medical certificate by the Petitioner which states that total
number of days of absence from the college would be three days. The
medical certificate for the student has been appended to the Application.
The said Application has been tendered by Mr. Kanetkar and is taken on
record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
Pallavi 6/8
7 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
15. Clauses 68 and 70 of the Ordinance reproduced above makes it clear
that the Executive Council is empowered to condone the deficiency in
attendance provided that the student has attended at least 55% of lectures
in the whole year.
16. The Petitioner, admittedly is having only 45% attendance and falling
short of the minimum requirement of 55% attendance, which deficiency
cannot be condoned by the Executive Council. The provisions of the
Ordinance lays down mandatory requirements and has not been challenged
by the Petitioner. Thus, the reliefs sought by the Petitioner, if granted, would
water down the mandate under such Ordinance of the University of Pune
which makes it clear that such deficiency in attendance beyond 20% cannot
be condoned.
17. The reliance placed by the Respondents on the Defaulter List annexed
to the Petition clearly indicates that there are 27 students whose exam
forms could not be accepted, on account of failure to meet the condonable
attendance requirement i.e. 55% in the year. Thus, it appears that the
Petitioner having 45% attendance in the year, is not treated differently or
discriminated against, as claimed by her.
18. The Delhi High Court judgment cited on behalf of the Petitioner is
not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This in
view of the Ordinance of the University of Pune (supra) which mandates
the student of the University to have the requisite attendance in the College
Pallavi 7/8
8 2-WP-739-2026 (C).doc
and provides for maximum condonable attendance requirement being 20%
i.e. at least 55% of lectures in the whole year and not below such
mandatory threshold.
19. The Petitioner has not distinguished the judgment and order of this
Court in Shivprasad Hiralal Salunke (supra) which is squarely applicable in
the given facts. In view thereof, we are not persuaded to depart therefrom
and/or take a different, divergent view, in the given facts and
circumstances.
20. In light of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the
decision of the Respondent No.1 – College in rejecting the plea of the
Petitioner from permitting her to appear in the ensuing Semester – I
examinations.
21. For all the above reasons, we dismiss the Petition with no order as to
costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
Pallavi 8/8
Checking your session…