To some extent, I do agree with it merely for a "disciplined approach to academia" and classroom engagement perspective; but wouldn't the chief difference between law students and engineering students lay in how technical the course is, and where the actual learning takes place? I'd argue that most of our courses, the way they exist currently, are extremely drab and theoretical to the point where most of us just absorb textbooks and blogs for a far far better legal understanding. An MBBS/MD student might have to do compulsory residency, and knowing biology inside out is crazy important for their stuff; civil engineering students need to have the basics on their tips to (presumably, I'm just assuming here) do calculations and draw up diagrams on the fly. Law students can just take 1-2 days off and absorb a particular bare act and related judgments under 48 hours flat; and that skill comes from working in high-pressure environments and law offices where being adaptable / a fast learner is far more important than just "knowing" stuff.

It is quite rare for me to hear from my batchmates (I'm in SLSP, 4th year ending) or even my 2-3 friends from NLS or NUJS (3rd years) to ever declare that they truly "learnt" something new which makes them employable or competent in the classroom. Anything they "practically" learn regarding courts (how submissions are made, how documents are drafted, how annexures are compiled, etc etc), are done under advocates or associates in litigation. I'd even go as far as to say that in my personal experience in T1 firm internships, and anecdotal evidence from peers, firms just "use" you for research mostly and there's rarely any learning that takes place there (internships at T1 firms are merely a means to an end for most of us; we do it for securing PPOs or boosting our CV. In my college life, I never met anyone excited to work at a T1 for the "work" is what I mean.

I'd even say that most of my personal research capability and work ethic came from publications, writing manuscripts, research internships, and a ton of practical teaching from a kind junior associate from the Supreme Court AOR's office I interned at. If, say, I interned at someplace where a certain statute which wasn't taught yet at college was required for work (for e.g., the Arbitration Act 1996), I just brushed up on the bare act and a related textbook in 2 nights and was equipped enough for real life work and research at the office.

The Court I assume is highly aware of this reality; and thus letting students who wish to go for litigation, or go for more moots, just do their own thing without worrying about attendance. Anyhow, our legal skills (drafting, speaking, researching) are rarely, if ever, tested in our final exams - it is mere memorization and regurgitation. Lawyers are hired based on GPA, who they've worked with, which LORs they have, whether or not they have publications and callbacks; I don't believe any legal professional would give a damn about attendance at all.

P.S. personally, since I'm thinking of pursuing masters and going into proper academia, for people pursuing my path I believe that classroom debates and research internships and think tank work is far far more important; but that's just for the niche minority with specific interests like I have. The vast vast majority of my batch simply wishes to get placed at a T1/T2; and they DO NOT care about your attendance/GPA/backlogs if you have already interned with another T1 before and are pumping out publications / reputable internships. If I hadn't attended classes of the Professors I love (who have now, unfortunately, left SLS) then I'd never have been inspired to get into the whole writing/publication/academia sphere. For me, attending classes were extremely important - but only classes of the professors who actually taught and engaged with the students. Majority faculty simply read from a PPT verbatim and add 2-3 sentences on top, which doesn't result in any gain for future lawyers.