Justice GS Sistani, before whom the matter was listed for hearing, said he was recusing himself from the hearing as someone in his family is studying in the university and that the matter be heard by another bench.
A bench of Justices GS Sistani and Vinod Goel had earlier expressed concern over the alleged suicide, saying it appeared that there was a communication gap between the student and the people close to him.
It had said that it could not be "believed that a 20-year-old boy ends his precious life, just because he was allegedly not allowed to sit for his semester exam, due to shortfall in attendance".
Sushant Rohilla, a third year law student, allegedly hanged himself at his home in Delhi on August 10, 2016 after the university was said to have barred him from sitting for his semester exams because he did not have the requisite attendance.
He left behind a note saying he was a "failure and did not wish to live".
The Supreme Court had on September 5, 2016 taken cognisance of a letter written by a friend of the student who died, saying it would examine whether there was an "element of suspicion" that the incident could have taken place due to "harassment".
However, on March 6, the top court had transferred the matter to the Delhi High Court to decide it on merit.
Acting on the top court's direction, the high court had issued notice to the Indraprastha University, to which the institution is affiliated, saying it was a necessary party.
The PIL was instituted after taking note of the letter written to then CJI TS Thakur by Raghav Sharma, a close friend of the girl killed and a 4th-year law student.
It has been alleged that Rohilla, who could not attend classes for quite some time due to various reasons including his physical health, was depressed over the prospect of not being allowed to take the examination by the college because of lack of attendance.
The letter had blamed the Amity authorities for Rohilla's suicide.
Alleging harassment by his teachers, his classmates had taken to social media and launched protests on campus after his death demanding action against his professors, two of whom have since resigned.
The letter to the CJI had also sought the top court should take cognisance of the incident and order a probe by an independent committee in such matters.
It had also referred to the letter written by the student before taking the extreme step that he "might not mentally survive" the debarment.
The varsity had said that the student had 43 per cent attendance, whereas the attendance requirement of the university was 75 per cent.