BUNDLE OF LIES BY AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI

1. THAT SUSHANT'S ATTENDANCE WAS LOW:

Bar council of India states the following rule on attendance:
12. End Semester Test
No student of any of the degree program shall be allowed to take the end semester test in a subject
if the student concerned has not attended minimum of 70% of the classes held in the subject
concerned as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training conducted in the
subject taken together.
Provided that if a student for any exceptional reasons fail to attend 70% of
the classes held in any subject, the Dean of the University or the Principal of the Centre of Legal
Education , as the case may be, may allow the student to take the test if the student concerned
attended at least 65% of the classes held in the subject concerned and attended 70% of classes in
all the subjects taken together. The similar power shall rest with the Vice Chancellor or Director of
a National Law University, or his authorized representative in the absence of the Dean of Law.
Provided further that a list of such students allowed to take the test with reasons recorded be
forwarded to the Bar Council of India.
Take notice that the 70% requirement of attendance includes classes held in the subject concerned
as also the moot court room exercises, tutorials and practical training. Thus, 70% criteria is the
sum of:
- classes held
- moot court room exercises
- tutorials
- practical training
If Sushant would have been given attendance (which was his right) on account of his debates and
moot exercices, organization of them, steps taken to gather sponsorships, etc., his attendance would
have been more than 80%.
Amity shall also answer that if Sushant's attendance was in fact so low, then why did college
authorities allow him to take part in those moots, debates, miss classes to bring scholarships, etc.?
2. THAT SUSHANT'S PHYSICAL ATTENDANCE WAS 29%, AND WAS GIVEN 'GRACE'
ATTENDANCE:
First of all, there is no concept of grace attendance. Attendance even as per Amity is of two types:
physical and on duty. Even this distinction is unique, and irrational.
Second of all, even as per Amity's own records, Sushant has 43% of physical attendance. See below
the image of Amity's relevant record (which they themself shared with everyone) :

3. THAT AMITY FOLLOWS ATTENDANCE NORMS FOLLOWED BY EVERY

UNIVERSITY AND AUTHORITY:
Firstly, there is no established practice. IP University norms lay down the guideline of 75% (with its
own provisos and exceptions); Bar Council of India has the norm of 70% (with its own provisos and
exceptions); and while filling up the Bar Council of Delhi registration form, one is required to have
attendance of 66% only.
Amity openly flouts the Bar Council of Delhi norms regarding quality of education (see:
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/legal-education/education-rules-2008/) :
-Drinking water and rest room facilities shall be available in library premises- THERE ARE NO
SUCH FACILITIES IN LIBRARY PREMISES
- Library shall have adequate reading space for at least 25% of enrolled students- THERE ARE
MORE THAN 1200 STUDENTS IN AMITY LAW SCHOOL. LIBRARY HAS SPACE FOR LESS
THAN 10% OF STUDENTS.
- The maximum intake in each section the class is 60 students- THERE ARE MANY CLASSES
WITH MORE THAN 60 STUDENTS
- Academic building shall provide separate classrooms for each section sufficient to accommodate
sixty students and other rooms for the purposes of tutorial work, moot court, students common
room and library- THERE ARE NO SEPERATE ROOMS FOR TUTORIAL WORK, MOOT
COURT, COMMON ROOM, ETC.
4. THAT SUSHANT COMMITTED SUICIDE BECAUSE OF LOW ATTENDANCE:
Sushant did not commit suicide because of low attendance. He was forced to take this step because
of mental torture and harassment by authorities in general, and Prof Ishita Rutabhasini in particular.
He was forced to bring sponsorships for debate competition even when his leg was broken. His
friend, Siddhant Bajaj testifies that Sushant was in fact depressed and stated in those exact words:
pehle umeed khatam hoti hai, phir insaan aur aakhir mein semester.
Proof:

Diviya Patpatiya, another friend of Sushant shares her testimonial:

Avni Sharma, another friend of Sushant, also testifies as such:

5. THAT SUSHANT COULD HAVE APPROACHED GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, AND

THAT ITS HEAD WAS MS. RITA GARG:
Even at the time of press conference, Ms. Ishita Rutabhasini was a key member of grievance
committee, against whom the grievance was. When Amity was confronted, it in an hurried and
laughable fashion, took out a notice on 17.8.2016 evening appointing Ms Rita Garg as head of
Grievance commitee.
Proof:

6. THAT THE FAMILY OF SUSHANT HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FAULT
OF AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI
No such statement was ever made by Sushant's family
7. THAT THE DECISION TO DETAIN SUSHANT WAS PURELY OF I.P. UNIVERSITY
It is a common knowledge that the practice of Amity Law School is, that it never sends a list of
detained students to IP University as it ought to. Amity itself arbitrarily chooses whom to debar
and detain, by stopping a child from giving a particular exam(s). IP University issues admit cards to
every child of Amity Law School, which has each exam code written on it, and Amity forces a child
to sign an undertaking that it won't go and give a particular exam. In effect, no student is actually
debarred (not allowed to give an exam) or detained (failed/ year back) by IP University (because
Amity never sends list of detained/debarred students to University as it ought to), but by virtue of
this absurd, achaic and arbitrary undertaking forced upon a child, a student abstains from exam(s),
and actually fails by being absent on the day of exam (as Sushant was forced as well), an not
actually debarred/detained.
Sushant's admit card was issued, and Sushant was allowed to give those exams by IP University.
Proof:

8. THAT DETAINING SUSHANT WAS AS PER LAW:

Before the exams, Sushant was conveyed that on account of his low attendance, he would be
debarred. However, he was assured that he would not be detained. This is proved by a testimonial of
a student of Amity (many students would testify to that effect), which will be given below.
However, after the exams, on 11 th July, Sushant was told, without any prior hearing, that he is being
detained. (proof will be given below). Any law student, lawyer, teacher, institution would know that
any decision without hearing is against Principles of Natural Justice (audi alteram partem). This
detention, thus, without proper hearing, was illegal. This also goes on to disprove another lie of
Amity, that Sushant knew about detention in May, and thus detention could not be reason of suicide.
On the morning of suicide, Sushant received another blow from Amity, when he was told that he
was also not allowed to paricipate in moot court competition, which is highly unreasonable and
illogical, since low attendance has nothing to do with legal prowess of a student in moot court
competitions.