LLB | Privacy Cannot Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Attendance: Delhi High Court Quashes BCI Circular Mandating Biometric Surveillance in Law Colleges

"Educational institutions are not surveillance zones—discipline must not come at the cost of dignity and privacy", declared the Delhi High Court in its landmark judgment delivered on November 3, 2025, in the matter titled Courts on its Own Motion in Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla, W.P.(CRL) 793/2017. In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for legal education, the Court set aside the controversial circular issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) mandating biometric attendance tracking, CCTV monitoring, and employment disclosures by law students.

“The Classroom Is Not a Police Station – Surveillance Is Not a Substitute for Pedagogy”

At the heart of the judgment was the BCI’s Circular No. BCI:D:5186/2024 dated 24th September 2024, which sought to enforce biometric systems and constant video surveillance in classrooms across India’s law schools. The BCI had justified the move as a measure to ensure strict compliance with Rule 12 of the BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008, which prescribes mandatory attendance requirements for appearing in examinations.

Rejecting this logic, the Delhi High Court unequivocally held:

“Such blanket surveillance is not only disproportionate but also entirely misaligned with the objectives of higher education. Discipline in learning cannot come at the cost of autonomy, privacy, and dignity.”

The Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, emphasized that “education cannot be governed by the ethos of suspicion” and that “rigid enforcement mechanisms rooted in surveillance only deepen mistrust between students and institutions.”

Court Criticises BCI for Creating a Culture of Fear Instead of Reform

The BCI’s circular required all Centres of Legal Education (CLEs) to install biometric devices and CCTV cameras in classrooms, and to retain recordings for one year. It further compelled students to declare their employment status and obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) if engaged in any job, failing which their degree and final mark sheets could be withheld.

The Court found this framework highly intrusive and disproportionate, observing:

“Institutions cannot presume students to be dishonest or defaulting by design. The answer to non-compliance with attendance norms is reform, not surveillance. The solution lies in academic innovation, not technological policing.”

Refusing to accept the BCI’s reliance on global practices or the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Court observed that “even the use of digital tools must adhere to constitutional safeguards—particularly the right to privacy as recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.”

“Attendance Is a Metric, Not a Master”: Court Reorients Legal Education Away from Surveillance-Based Compliance

The High Court drew a sharp distinction between monitoring for transparency and surveillance for control, stating that biometric tracking systems reduce students to data points rather than treating them as autonomous learners.

“The purpose of education is not mere presence in classrooms, but meaningful engagement with the learning process. Monitoring attendance through biometric surveillance treats students as mere bodies to be counted, rather than minds to be cultivated.”

The Court observed that the BCI's approach eroded trust and ignored the broader spirit of the National Education Policy, 2020, which emphasizes flexibility, blended learning, and mental well-being over rigid, physical enforcement of classroom presence.

“Surveillance Cannot Substitute for Compassion”: The Human Cost Behind the Judgment

The judgment was passed in the backdrop of the 2016 suicide of Sushant Rohilla, a law student who was debarred from examinations due to shortage of attendance. Though the criminal investigation into his death concluded with a closure report, the Court acknowledged that the circumstances surrounding his death reflected a deeper systemic failure in legal education, particularly the mental stress caused by inflexible and punitive academic structures.

In this context, the surveillance directive by the BCI was seen as exacerbating an already distressing environment for students:

“When students are already facing enormous academic, personal, and financial pressures, converting educational spaces into surveillance zones only compounds their alienation and mental distress.”

Circular Set Aside, Privacy Upheld

The Court finally set aside the BCI’s circular, holding it to be “invasive, disproportionate, and contrary to constitutional principles of privacy and dignity”, and directed that:

“The Circular No. BCI:D:5186/2024 dated 24th September 2024 shall not be given effect to.”

Further, the Court warned regulatory bodies like the BCI against weaponizing regulatory power in ways that violate student rights, stating:

“Compliance mechanisms must be human-centric. Legal education cannot be reduced to mechanical enforcement and bodily tracking.”

Case Title: Courts on its Own Motion in Re: Suicide Committed by Sushant Rohilla
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2025