Introduction
Education is meant to cultivate critical thinking, curiosity, and intellectual autonomy. Yet, in many educational systems across India and the world, attendance policies equating physical presence with learning have gained prominence. The recent Delhi High Court ruling that barred law colleges from withholding examinations purely on the basis of attendance shortfall has ignited a wider debate on whether compulsory attendance in higher education truly enhances learning or merely enforces compliance.
 
The Core Issue: Compliance Over Engagement
At the heart of the debate is a misconceived link between attendance and learning. Compulsory attendance treats students as passive participants whose mere presence is presumed to guarantee academic seriousness.
However, this logic is flawed for several reasons:

• Physical presence ≠ intellectual engagement: A student can be physically present yet mentally disengaged; attendance cannot capture attention, understanding, or analytical thought.
• Incentivising obedience over curiosity: Mandated attendance institutionalises surveillance rather than fostering intrinsic motivation—a shift from learning as an active pursuit to learning as ritual compliance.
• Undermines adult autonomy: Particularly in higher education, adults capable of making complex decisions about time and priorities are treated as wards needing supervision, which is philosophically and pedagogically counterproductive.

Judicial Intervention as a Catalyst for Rethinking Attendance
The Delhi High Court’s decision (2025) that prevented law colleges from withholding examinations purely on attendance grounds is a significant precedent. By directing the Bar Council of India to review attendance norms, the court underscored that learning is not a mechanical function of presence but a human process involving dialogue, thought, and inquiry. This judgment also aligns with the broader educational philosophy of trust and autonomy, encouraging institutions to prioritise pedagogical quality over administrative control.
 
Recent Policy Examples: Attendance Rules Under Scrutiny
The controversy over attendance requirements is not isolated to law colleges; policy shifts across India reflect wider tensions:

• CBSE’s 75% attendance rule for Class X and XII board exams demonstrates the insistence on physical presence in school education, often regardless of learning outcomes or student circumstances. Many students and parents feel this rule is rigid and sometimes counterintuitive, especially when quality of teaching is uneven.
• University protests: Student groups in Delhi University openly protested against mandatory attendance policies, arguing that exam eligibility should be tied to learning and performance rather than mere presence.
• IIT Kharagpur’s attendance policy review: Recognising stress and mental well-being concerns, IIT Kharagpur has chosen not to deregister students solely for low attendance, shifting focus to active assessments and innovative evaluation methods.
• Policy reversals: IIT (ISM) Dhanbad ended its 75% mandatory attendance requirement, allowing students to appear in exams irrespective of attendance. This move was driven by the belief that time outside class—in clubs, research, and self-directed activities—can be equally valuable for learning.
• State-level shifts: Bihar scrapped the 75% attendance criterion for students to receive financial benefits, reflecting a move away from rigid compliance norms toward more inclusive educational support.

Why Mandating Presence Can Be Detrimental?
1. Reduces Education to Tick-Box Exercise
Attendance requirements frequently result in ritual attendance without engagement. Students attend classes just to meet quotas, not to engage meaningfully. This reinforces surface learning—memorisation and passive note-taking—over deep comprehension and analytical thought.
 
2. Penalises Genuine Learning Elsewhere
Mandatory attendance often ignores informal and experiential learning—seminars, internships, self-study, workshops, and competitive exam preparation—that may be more relevant to a student’s academic and professional growth.
 
3. Heightens Stress and Mental Health Concerns
Rigid attendance rules can exacerbate anxiety and exclude students dealing with personal, financial, or health challenges, impacting overall well-being rather than uplifting educational outcomes.
 
4. Encourages Malpractice
When attendance is linked to financial grants or exam eligibility, institutions and students might resort to unethical practices—such as inflating attendance records—to meet targets. This is evident in recent opposition to attendance-linked grants in Gujarat where schools warned such policies might encourage malpractice.
 
Towards a More Meaningful Learning Paradigm
A reformed attendance policy should:

• Emphasise learning outcomes over physical presence;
• Integrate active learning tools like project-based assessments, seminars, flipped classrooms, and peer evaluations;
• Encourage student autonomy, allowing tailored learning pathways that recognise diverse circumstances and learning styles;
• Promote trust-based pedagogy, where engagement and curiosity, not surveillance make drive participation.

Conclusion
Mandating student presence as a proxy for learning is an outdated paradigm that conflates discipline with intellectual engagement. Recent judicial pronouncements and institutional policy shifts highlight a growing recognition that learning cannot be legislated—it must be cultivated. True education empowers students as autonomous thinkers, nurtures curiosity, and values engagement over attendance. In recalibrating policies, stakeholders in Indian education must ask not whether students are present, but whether they are truly learning.
 

Download Pdf