– Autar Nehru (Delhi)

Christ University students: strict dress code

In a landmark verdict delivered late last year that hasn’t received sufficient attention in academia, the Delhi high court — acting on directions from the Supreme Court of India — struck a decisive blow against pervasive infantilisation of Indian higher education. In the tragic Sushant Rohilla Case, it has ruled that less than prescribed hours of classroom attendance cannot bar students from writing examinations.

The narrative behind this landmark judgement is that Sushant Rohilla, a student of the five-year B.A.LL.B. programme at Amity Law School, Noida, died by suicide on August 10, 2016, after being prevented from writing an examination due to shortage of mandatory attendance, and consequent anguish and distress. This tragedy came to national attention when a friend filed a PIL (public interest litigation) writ in the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter to the Delhi high court in 2017.

Over the next eight years, the high court expanded the inquiry beyond this tragedy to examine systemic issues including rigid attendance rules, students’ mental health, and weak grievance redressal mechanisms in higher education, culminating in last year’s judgement revising attendance norms. In its ruling, a division bench of the high court (Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma JJ presiding) did more than relax attendance rules. It questioned deeply entrenched paternalism within colleges/universities that shepherd adult students in higher education capable of making informed academic choices no differently than errant schoolchildren.

In this particular case, it’s pertinent to note that the minimum classroom lectures attendance norms were not prescribed by Amity Law School, but by the Bar Council of India, which mandates a 70 percent attendance threshold effectively equating physical presence with learning. The court questioned this assumption permitting students to write examinations regardless of violation of attendance rules (allowing only marginal penalties). In effect, the judiciary has signalled that learning outcomes, rather than attending classes, should define higher education.

At its core, this ruling is a repudiation of pervasive infantilisation of higher education. Several higher education institutions (HEIs) impose arbitrary dress codes, especially for women students, seat male and female students separately and penalise campus romance. They seem oblivious that tertiary students are adults qualified to vote in or out the Central and state governments. Moreover in recent times, severe conditions are imposed upon students’ union and/or societies inviting ‘controversial’ public figures to address them or “engage in politics”. There seems to be declining awareness that in democracies, HEI campuses are the training ground for public life and public institutions such as Parliament and state legislative assemblies.

For instance in Christ University, Bengaluru, ranked among the country’s Top 10 universities in the EW 2026-27 league table of private multidisciplinary universities, a strict dress code is imposed by the Reverend Fathers of the Carmelites of Mary Immaculate order. Students are required to dress formally and “decently” at all times on campus. For men, casual wear such as jeans or low-waist pants is discouraged or prohibited, and for women salwar-kameez with dupatta or formal attire is mandatory with clothing considered “tight, sleeveless, transparent or revealing” proscribed as are arbitrarily adjudged flashy hairstyles, visible tattoos, and body piercings. Students who violate these subjective dress codes are denied entry to classes and campus activities.

In this connection, it’s noteworthy that new genre post-liberalisation private universities are disposed to treat their students as responsible adults capable of making their own lifestyle decisions. While absence from classes may be queried, it is rarely punitive and women students in shorts and western wear are ubiquitous, with men free to dress according to their preferred lifestyles — personal freedoms denied to students in most government and aided HEIs.

Comments Prof. Anand Prakash Mishra, Dean of the top-ranked Jindal Global Law School of the O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat: “The Bar Council of India’s rule mandating 70 percent classroom/lectures attendance needs review if not abolition. These days, students have numerous online, library, peer discussion among other learning options. They should have the discretion of not attending the classes of faculty not up to their expectation and needs. This judgement of the Delhi high court should be welcomed as it also puts pressure on faculty to improve their teaching so that students willingly attend classes. In higher education, it is reasonable to expect students to be aware of their responsibilities.”

By affirming that students should not be barred from academic progression merely for choosing how — or whether — to attend lectures, the Delhi high court ruling has nudged the system towards maturity. It acknowledges a simple but usually ignored principle that adult learners in higher education don’t need school-level monitoring. India’s higher education system enrolls millions of adult learners, yet continues to operate with school-level controls. This judgement is an overdue push in the right direction.