Mumbai, July 2 -- The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a law student seeking relaxation of the mandatory attendance requirement to appear for his final semester examination, saying, "Hardship, however genuine, cannot by itself furnish a legal basis to compel an academic institution to act contrary to its governing regulations." A division bench of justices RI Chagla and Farhan Dubash was hearing a petition filed by a student at the Kirti P Mehta School of Law, a constituent institution of the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, who was debarred from taking the tenth semester examination due to inadequate attendance. The student had claimed that the 14-day shortfall in his attendance was on account of chickenpox, a contagious disease, which had compelled him to stay away from college. If those 14 days were treated as medical leave, he would have met the attendance requirement, the student had said. The student told the court that he was diagnosed with chickenpox in February and advised strict bed rest. The attendance policy of the college required him to seek medical leave within five days of absence, alongside submitting relevant medical reports. But the documents before the court showed that the college was informed of his medical leave for the first time nearly two months later, on April 27, while the tenth semester examination was scheduled to begin on May 4. The student was unable to appear for the examination held in May, and later amended his petition and urged the court to allow him to take the re-examination to be held this month. The counsel for the college, however, told the court that as stated in the Student Resources Book, every student was required to have 80% attendance in every subject. The college record showed that the student was absent for 53 days - though he claimed that he was on internship from December 2025 to March 2026, the college's attendance policy made no exemptions for students under internships, the college's counsel said. The court said it did not find the college's requirements for medical leave unreasonable. It also said internships that contribute to professional development "cannot substitute attendance in an academic programme". The judges said that the student was unable to prove that the college's decision was arbitrary, malafide, or discriminatory. On June 19, HT had reported a similar case of a student suffering from mental illness who had sought similar relaxation of the attendance requirements after she was debarred from taking her final year Bachelor of Science examination. The same bench had decided her case. The judges referred to their decision of June 18 in this case too. In the case of the law student, the judges also said, "We are not unmindful of the medical difficulty pleaded by the petitioner, nor of the fact that he is a final-semester law student". The judges said that in the previous month, they had consistently passed orders in which they decided not to interfere in cases of educational institutions implementing their attendance policies. "Since the educational institutions are expert bodies, such decisions are best left to their discretion," the judges said....