The Hindu Editorial Analysis
02 January 2026
Mandating student presence, erasing learning
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper – GS-2 : Education, Governance, Judiciary, Social Justice
Context
The editorial analyses the Delhi High Court’s affirmation that law students may sit for examinations without fulfilling rigid attendance requirements. The ruling has triggered unease among university administrators but is presented by the author as a corrective to a deeply bureaucratised and surveillance-driven conception of higher education. The article argues that compulsory attendance reflects a paternalistic mindset that confuses learning with obedience and undermines the core purpose of universities — to cultivate curiosity, autonomy, and critical thinking.
Core Issue
The central issue is whether learning can be enforced through surveillance and coercion, or whether genuine education requires trust in students’ intellectual autonomy.
Indian universities, the editorial argues, have long relied on:
- Mandatory attendance norms,
- Administrative control over pedagogy,
- Compliance-based metrics of seriousness.
This approach prioritises presence over engagement and discipline over intellectual growth.
The Obsession with Physical Presence
The fixation on attendance stems from a managerial culture that equates:
- Physical presence with learning,
- Absence with indiscipline,
- Attendance with academic seriousness.
Drawing on decades of teaching experience, the author contends that:
- Attendance does not guarantee learning,
- Coercion produces neither scholarship nor curiosity,
- A classroom that requires enforcement has already failed pedagogically.
Attendance, at best, measures obedience — not understanding.
Pedagogical Bankruptcy of Enforced Attendance
The obsession with physical presence thrives where:
- Teaching is reduced to rote transfer of prefabricated notes,
- Classrooms become transactional spaces,
- Knowledge could be accessed more efficiently through digital means.
In such contexts, enforcing attendance masks deeper failures of pedagogy. The Delhi High Court ruling disrupts this complacency by compelling institutions to confront an uncomfortable truth: if students do not come, the problem may lie with what — and how — we teach.
Learning as Desire, Not Obligation
The editorial draws upon exemplary pedagogical traditions to argue that:
- Great classrooms are born of anticipation, not compulsion.
- Teachers earn attendance through intellectual excitement, not rules.
Historical examples from Oxford, Cambridge, and leading scholars illustrate that:
- Attendance followed compelling ideas,
- Absence was unthinkable not because it was punished, but because learning was irresistible.
This culture of voluntary engagement, the author argues, has been forgotten in Indian universities.
Classroom Experiences and Intellectual Autonomy
The author recounts experiential teaching moments — outdoor readings, collective reflection, dialogic inquiry — to demonstrate how:
- Learning flourishes when students are trusted,
- Interpretation replaces memorisation,
- Inquiry replaces instruction.
Such classrooms dissolve rigid structures and encourage students to think independently rather than merely reproduce authorised meanings.
The Freirean Critique
Invoking Paulo Freire, the editorial criticises the “banking model” of education, where:
- Knowledge is deposited into passive students,
- Attendance becomes a tool of control,
- Intellectual imagination is stifled.
True education, Freire argued, is dialogic — awakening consciousness through questioning, debate, and shared inquiry. Mandatory attendance is incompatible with this vision.
The Sorry State of the Indian University
The editorial situates attendance mandates within a broader institutional crisis:
- Universities are suffocated by bureaucratic rigidity,
- Administrative overreach undermines academic freedom,
- Curricula are scrutinised, dissent silenced, and loyalty prioritised over merit.
In this environment, attendance policies become instruments of pedagogical pacification rather than educational engagement.
Reimagining Higher Education
The Delhi High Court ruling opens space for transformative rethinking:
- By decoupling attendance from examination eligibility, it challenges coercive pedagogy.
- It shifts responsibility back to educators to make learning meaningful.
- It reframes motivation from external compulsion to intrinsic curiosity.
An empty classroom, the editorial suggests, can be a catalyst for introspection rather than punishment.
Learning, Freedom, and the University’s Purpose
At its core, the debate is philosophical:
- Do we trust students as thinking beings?
- Or do we treat them as wards to be monitored?
Learning is a dynamic, evolving process driven by dialogue, imagination, and risk-taking. It cannot be legislated into existence.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms a fundamental truth: learning cannot be mandated; it must be cultivated. By exposing the futility of coercive attendance policies, the judgment challenges Indian universities to recover confidence in their pedagogical mission.
The future of higher education lies in recognising the distinction between information delivery and intellectual discovery. Only by embracing freedom, trust, and curiosity can universities fulfil their role as spaces of genuine learning and democratic thought.