The Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief to a third-year psychology student who was barred from appearing in her university examinations due to low attendance. While acknowledging her mental health struggles, the court said sympathy alone cannot override academic regulations.A division bench of Justices R I Chagla and Farhan Dubash said it was not insensitive to the student’s circumstances and extended its deepest sympathies to her and her family. However, the court stressed that legal decisions must be based on existing rules.“Sympathy, however, cannot be a substitute for legal entitlement. A court is concerned with legality of decision-making and not with re-writing academic regulations or creating exemptions that the governing framework itself does not contemplate,” the bench said in its order dated June 16. A copy of the judgment was made available on Friday.The student, who is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Applied Psychology at a Mumbai-based university, had challenged a debarment letter issued on April 15. She sought permission to appear for third-year re-examinations scheduled this month, arguing that denial would result in the loss of an entire academic year and negatively affect her education and mental well-being.According to her petition, she had maintained the required attendance in previous semesters. However, during the final semester this year, she was diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and personality disorder, which led to depression, impaired emotional regulation and difficulty coping with stress.The plea further stated that in March this year, she experienced an acute medical episode involving suicidal thoughts and hallucinations. Following this, her parents took her to their hometown in Uttar Pradesh for treatment and care.The student’s father informed the university about her condition. However, the court noted that no further communication regarding her continued absence from classes was sent to the institution. After she remained absent for nearly a month, the university issued a debarment letter, making her ineligible to appear for the final semester re-examinations.After receiving the debarment notice, the student’s father emailed the university requesting that she be allowed to take the examinations. The petition stated that there was no response to the request.While dismissing the plea, the High Court said it found no grounds to interfere with the university’s decision. The bench observed that no exceptional case had been made out for quashing the debarment letter.The court also said it was not a medical expert and could not independently assess psychiatric evaluations or medical records. It added that its role in academic matters is limited and that educational institutions are best placed to regulate attendance requirements and academic standards.The bench further noted that attendance rules are applied uniformly and that around 350 other students had also been declared ineligible for examinations due to shortage of attendance. It held that judicial intervention in academic matters is unwarranted unless there is clear arbitrariness or a violation of statutory provisions.
