Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court reserves judgment on Delhi HC law attendance ruling
The case involves Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions challenging a Delhi High Court verdict that allegedly diluted the mandatory attendance requirement for law students.
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment after hearing arguments.
Who it concerns: Petitioner: Prakruthi Jain; Respondent: Bar Council of India; Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
What the court decided
- Writ Petitions (W.P.(C) No. 31/2025 and 32/2025) listed after four weeks.
- Special Leave Petitions (SLP(Crl) No. 9450/2026 and 10717/2026) arguments concluded.
- Judgment/order reserved for the SLPs.
- Parties permitted to file written briefs within two weeks.
Also in the document
- The Court reserved judgment on the Special Leave Petitions rather than deciding them immediately.
- A two-week deadline was set for filing written briefs.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · Ref. SLP(Crl) No. 9450/2026 Diary No. 28872 / 2026 · 6 Oct 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.