The primary purpose of higher education isn’t simply to award students degrees or mold them into a certain mold. Its essence is also to free students from their shackles and develop them into reflective citizens capable of independent thinking. Yet, Indian colleges and universities have implemented a system where classroom attendance is mandatory for every student, and this degree is the limit of education, and nothing more than “monitoring and discipline.”
If physical presence becomes a prerequisite for learning, knowledge becomes mechanical, excluding other elements like curiosity, dialogue, and critical thinking. In such circumstances, all students are motivated not by the joy of learning or intellectual curiosity, but by rules and punishments. In such an environment, the ethical and legal dimensions of this issue have been underscored by recent statements from the Delhi High Court. The Court reiterated that denying students the opportunity to take exams or advance academically if they have demonstrated even a modicum of performance according to “rigid attendance criteria” is an affront to the very purpose of education.
These statements express the view that, today, students in higher education are not just children; they are more mature individuals, requiring the self-discipline and responsibility that come with experience. The value of education should be assessed according to the ability to truly learn, not merely by attending certain classes, the Court concluded. This challenges the traditional practice in Indian university institutions that considers attendance the primary reflection of educational merit. Paulo Freire’s “critical pedagogy,” and specifically his “banking model,” offers a powerful critique of the prevailing educational model within these campuses.
According to Freire, the educational process remains unbalanced due to the nature of teaching in which teachers are depositors of knowledge and students are passive recipients. In this banking model, the teacher is the heart of the bank, and the student is, essentially, an obedient consumer. The notion of compulsory attendance only reinforces this model, as it is now the student’s presence that determines the quality of learning. In this way, education ceases to be an act of dialogue and collaboration and becomes a mechanism of control and surveillance.
The ethical consequences of such a system are serious. As soon as schools begin to view students as a series of rule-abiding individuals, they strip them of their autonomy and dignity. Education, which is meant to cultivate independent thinking and self-determination, becomes a disciplinary tool. And there, they receive the feedback that their presence is crucial, if not the sole reason for understanding, or for asking questions. Over time, this mindset becomes entrenched; that learning is done in response to external stimuli, not in favor of intrinsic motivation. Morally, it is education for obedience, not for freedom. This rigid approach to compulsory attendance creates numerous problems at the student level.
Higher education is, in many ways, more complex and multifaceted than it has ever been. New types of learning and opportunities exist, including online resources, web-based materials, research investigations, projects, and fieldwork. That said, attendance is only as important as sitting in class, meaning these successful, alternative learning methods are ignored. This makes education standardized and elitist, as the field of knowledge is constantly expanding and dynamic. Compulsory attendance policies exacerbate social and economic inequalities.
Some students work part-time for financial reasons, parents who are caring for all their children, some who struggle with health problems, and many who have yet to find a job. Such rigid attendance rules ignore these diverse circumstances and impose a single attendance standard on all students. The Delhi High Court’s concern in this context is significant, in the sense that it is a case of education under attack from injustice and care. This emphasis is crucial because it implies that education must be examined from the context of justice and human sensitivity. When it is not aware of the actual situation of students, where they are in their lives, we do not have equal opportunity; the very concept of equal opportunity becomes diluted. In Freire’s critical pedagogy, education is used as a tool for social change. According to him, the role of education is not merely to impart information but also to foster consciousness, providing students with a foundation that empowers them to critically engage with and influence their social, political, and cultural environments.
Besides the banking model, the banking model teaches students to conform to the status quo. When education is combined with control and discipline through compulsory attendance, it hinders the formation of critical consciousness. Instead of challenging the status quo and considering different perspectives, students learn that security lies in conforming to rules. In Indian higher education, we find the problem at historical and structural levels. The colonial schooling system made administrative control and discipline the fundamental pillars of education. Even after independence, many schools remained unknowingly entangled in this paradigm. Compulsory attendance is part of the same tradition of maintaining control; education is run like a bureaucratic process. Internationally, higher education is moving towards more flexible, student-centered, and dialogue-based approaches.
Second, attendance and learning are not directly and naturally related. For some students, a teacher-led or teacher-led activity provides a sense of purpose when they are only able to attend a meeting but participate passively, whereas all these students learn more through their own study, discussion, and research. When universities equate attendance with learning, they ignore this complexity. In doing so, educational quality can be judged solely on attendance. Therefore, what we know has little basis in reality. Considering the above situation, the Delhi High Court’s observations can be seen as a vehicle for re-evaluating higher education policies. Through their lens, the courts argue, education should be about learning, not punishment.
Eliminating attendance may be impractical, but much is at stake here, including making it mandatory and serious. We should view attendance as an additional aid to learning, not the end goal itself. If our education is enriched through dialogue, participation, and partnership, Freire’s pedagogical approach shows us how. When teachers and students work as partners in the learning process, learning becomes vibrant and valuable. Education must become humane and democratic if institutions, such as universities, value quality learning, participation, and critical dialogue, and do not guarantee compulsory enrollment. This way, students will not only complete the curriculum but also gain knowledge about their responsibility to society.
Ultimately, the question is not about attendance, but about our understanding of what education is. If education is viewed solely as a system of discipline and control, it will remain limited within the context of the banking model. But if education is a vehicle for consciousness, freedom, and intellectual growth, then questioning policies like compulsory attendance is a necessity. The suggestions proposed by the Delhi High Court and the thoughts of Paulo Freire serve as guidance for thinking this way: the purpose of education in Indian universities is not submission; it is enlightenment, dialogue, and the development of humanity.
