Dr. Satyavan Saurabh
The primary purpose of higher education is not simply to award students degrees or mould them into a predetermined shape. Its deeper essence lies in liberating students from intellectual shackles and nurturing them into reflective citizens capable of independent thinking. Yet, Indian colleges and universities have institutionalised a system where classroom attendance is made mandatory for every student, reducing education to little more than monitoring and discipline. When physical presence becomes a prerequisite for learning, knowledge turns mechanical, sidelining essential elements such as curiosity, dialogue, and critical thinking.
In such circumstances, students are motivated not by the joy of learning or intellectual inquiry, but by fear of rules and punishments. The ethical and legal implications of this issue have recently been underscored by observations of the Delhi High Court. The Court reiterated that denying students the opportunity to appear in examinations or progress academically—despite demonstrable performance—based on rigid attendance criteria undermines the very purpose of education. These remarks reflect a broader understanding that students in higher education are no longer children; they are mature individuals who must be entrusted with self-discipline and responsibility. The Court concluded that the value of education should be assessed by the capacity to learn, not merely by classroom attendance. This challenges the traditional practice in Indian universities that treats attendance as the primary indicator of academic merit.
Paulo Freire’s theory of critical pedagogy, particularly his critique of the “banking model” of education, offers a powerful lens to examine this issue. According to Freire, the educational process becomes distorted when teachers act as depositors of knowledge and students as passive recipients. In this model, the teacher occupies the position of authority while the student is reduced to an obedient consumer. Compulsory attendance reinforces this imbalance, as physical presence is mistaken for engagement and learning. Education thus shifts from dialogue and collaboration to control and surveillance.
The ethical consequences of such a system are profound. When institutions reduce students to rule-following entities, they erode student autonomy and dignity. Education—meant to cultivate independence and self-determination—degenerates into a disciplinary mechanism. Over time, students internalise the idea that learning occurs only in response to external enforcement rather than intrinsic motivation. Morally, this becomes education for obedience rather than education for freedom.
Rigid attendance policies also generate practical problems at the student level. Higher education today is complex and multifaceted, offering diverse modes of learning such as online resources, digital platforms, independent research, projects, and fieldwork. However, when attendance is narrowly defined as physical presence in classrooms, these alternative and often effective learning avenues are ignored. This standardised approach renders education rigid and elitist, despite the ever-expanding and dynamic nature of knowledge.
Compulsory attendance further exacerbates social and economic inequalities. Many students work part-time to support themselves, some are caregivers within their families, others struggle with health challenges, and many face unstable employment conditions. Uniform attendance requirements fail to account for these realities, imposing a single rigid standard on a diverse student population. The Delhi High Court’s concern is particularly significant in this context, as it frames education within the principles of justice and human sensitivity. When institutions remain oblivious to students’ lived realities, the notion of equal opportunity becomes diluted and hollow.
In Freire’s critical pedagogy, education is a tool for social transformation. Its purpose extends beyond information transfer to fostering consciousness—enabling students to critically engage with social, political, and cultural realities. The banking model, by contrast, conditions students to conform to the status quo. When education is fused with control through compulsory attendance, the development of critical consciousness is stifled. Students learn that safety lies in compliance, not inquiry.
Historically, this problem in Indian higher education has structural roots. Colonial education systems prioritised administrative control and discipline, a legacy that persists even after independence. Compulsory attendance reflects this bureaucratic mindset, where education operates more like an administrative procedure than a transformative process. Globally, higher education is increasingly embracing flexible, student-centred, and dialogue-based approaches—highlighting the growing disconnect between attendance and genuine learning.
Attendance and learning are not naturally synonymous. While some students benefit from teacher-led instruction, others learn more effectively through independent study, discussion, or research. When universities equate attendance with learning, they oversimplify educational realities and risk reducing academic quality to mere numerical compliance.
Viewed in this light, the Delhi High Court’s observations offer an opportunity to re-evaluate higher education policies. Education should be rooted in learning, not punishment. While eliminating attendance requirements altogether may be impractical, their rigid enforcement demands reconsideration. Attendance should be treated as a supportive tool, not the ultimate goal. Freire’s pedagogical vision reminds us that when teachers and students collaborate as partners, education becomes meaningful and transformative.
If universities genuinely value quality learning, participation, and critical dialogue, education must become more humane and democratic. This approach not only equips students with academic knowledge but also fosters a sense of social responsibility. Ultimately, the debate is not about attendance alone—it is about our fundamental understanding of education. If education is viewed merely as a system of control, it will remain confined within the banking model. But if it is recognised as a path toward consciousness, freedom, and intellectual growth, then questioning compulsory attendance becomes not just valid, but necessary. The reflections of the Delhi High Court and the insights of Paulo Freire guide us toward this broader vision—where education is not submission, but enlightenment.
