Students confronting suspension, re-enrolment procedures or academic restrictions often experience deep psychological distress. The manifestation of depression, anxiety and social isolation among young individuals reflects not merely personal setbacks but gaps in our support systems. A delay of one or two years in a student’s academic journey creates ripple effects: diminished competitive advantage, increased financial strain on families and emotional scars that may endure for years.

These challenges also raise constitutional concerns. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include the right to live with dignity. Educational environments must therefore serve their highest purpose, the holistic development of young minds.

The Supreme Court of India, in its order dated January 17, 2025, in Amit Kumar and Others v. Union of India, delivered by the bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, marked an important moment in educational jurisprudence. The Court observed that mere attendance deficiency cannot by itself justify denial of examination opportunities. It emphasised that educational institutions exist to facilitate learning, not to function as punitive authorities, and that the right to education cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily.

The Delhi High Court has similarly clarified that institutions cannot gamble with students’ futures. While attendance requirements serve legitimate academic purposes, they must not be applied so rigidly that they extinguish academic and professional prospects. The evolving judicial approach underscores that every institutional rule must ultimately advance student welfare rather than punishment.

The time has come for institutions to acknowledge their accountability in matters relating to attendance, suspension, re-enrolment and academic restrictions. This is not merely about regulatory compliance; it is about safeguarding human potential.

Every student who enters an institution becomes its responsibility. When a student struggles with attendance or academic requirements, the first response should be inquiry rather than penalty. Institutions must examine whether the student is facing health challenges, financial hardship, mental health concerns or other difficulties. Only by understanding these factors can appropriate and proportionate responses be crafted.

The suggestion to reduce credit loads in appropriate cases opens possibilities, but institutions must also explore broader alternatives that preserve academic standards. Remedial programmes can address learning gaps while rebuilding confidence. Flexible scheduling can allow residential universities to offer classes beyond regular timetables, while non-residential institutions may organise holiday sessions, online modules or practical training opportunities suited to diverse circumstances.

Personalised learning pathways offer another important reform. Tailored academic plans can help students meet essential learning outcomes while accommodating genuine constraints. Such approaches reflect a shift in perspective from enforcing compliance to ensuring success.

India possesses one of the world’s largest youth populations, nearly 30 percent of its demographic profile. This demographic dividend must be supported by policies that enable young talent to contribute meaningfully to the vision of a developed India by 2047.

Ten recommendations

1. First, regulatory authorities such as UGC, AICTE, BCI and PCI should align their policies with the National Education Policy and adopt student-centred approaches.
2. Second, institutions must create effective channels of dialogue with students so that concerns are heard and addressed with empathy.
3. Third, attendance norms should incorporate reasonable flexibility, especially in cases involving medical or family hardships.
4. Fourth, each student should have access to a dedicated mentor who provides academic and personal guidance.
5. Fifth, structured remedial support systems must be institutionalised to address deficiencies constructively.
6. Sixth, online and hybrid learning models should be adopted where appropriate to provide flexibility without compromising rigour.
7. Seventh, campuses should foster enriching academic and cultural environments through libraries, co-curricular activities and student engagement initiatives.
8. Eighth, professional counselling and mental health services must form an integral part of institutional infrastructure.
9. Ninth, principles of natural justice require that any student facing suspension or restriction be given a fair opportunity to be heard.
10. Tenth, institutional policies must remain consistent with constitutional values and judicial guidance while maintaining academic standards.

Education’s purpose is empowerment, not exclusion. When a student’s future is preserved, families are strengthened, communities benefit and the nation progresses.

This is a moment for measured reform. An education system rooted in fairness, proportionality and compassion can uphold discipline while safeguarding dignity. By aligning institutional practice with constitutional principles and judicial guidance, we can transform academic discipline from a mechanism of punishment into a framework of support.

( The writer is Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University)