IIT (ISM) Dhanbad’s decision to abolish the 75 percent attendance rule from 2025-26 has sparked a debate in Indian higher-education. What apparently looks like an internal reform actually reflects a larger question: do attendance rules still serve a purpose when learning extends far beyond the classroom? The Delhi High Court’s recommendation in 2024 to revisit such regulations shows this is part of a national discourse. The discussion concerns a pertinent question India has long avoided—does compulsion or autonomy prepare students better for meaningful learning and adult responsibility?
There is no doubt that the Dhanbad move has an air of boldness. By removing the penalty attached to attendance, the institute has placed trust in students. It aligns with global trends where universities increasingly prioritise flexibility, personalised learning paths and experiential opportunities such as internships, research or cultural activities.
Recording attendance without making it punitive strikes a balance. Institutions still have data to track engagement, but students are freed from the anxiety of falling below an arbitrary threshold. This shift could foster critical thinking, creativity and motivation, moving beyond the ritual of physical presence to more authentic forms of learning.
Research provides some backing for this direction. Studies in India and abroad show that while attendance correlates with performance, the relationship is uneven. It tends to benefit weaker students who require structured contact, but the gains taper for self-directed learners who can grasp content independently.
A Carnegie Mellon University study even found that when autonomy is carefully designed, both attendance and performance can improve. The broader literature on self-directed learning reinforces this, showing that students learn better when they are trained to take ownership of their academic journey. From this perspective, IIT Dhanbad’s policy is an attempt to align with the idea that attendance should serve learning, not ritual compliance.
However, the Indian context makes this debate complicated. For decades, schooling here has relied on teacher-centred instruction, rote learning, and high-stakes external examinations. Students are often habituated to being ‘spoon-fed’, with compliance rather than curiosity driving much of their academic behaviour.
Removing compulsory attendance may expose the fragile scaffolding on which many students—especially first-generation learners and those from under-resourced backgrounds—depend. For such students, classrooms provide content, structure, peer learning, and a sense of accountability. Autonomy without support, in this context, risks turning into abandonment.
The Delhi High Court and many educationists have cautioned against such blanket reforms. Courses like clinical training require in-person practice, while attendance also underpins scholarships, stipends and hostel discipline. IIT Dhanbad has sensibly retained it for such cases to avoid chaos. The court had rightly urged a differentiated approach: flexibility for lecture-based courses and mandated hours of attendance.
Mental health adds another layer. Strict attendance rules have been tied to anxiety, distress, and even suicides. Loosening them can ease pressure and create healthier spaces. However, freedom can also overwhelm students who lack time-management skills or juggle jobs, money worries, and family duties. What is needed is guidance in self-directed learning, mentoring, recorded lectures, and small assessments that keep students engaged. Without such support, freedom will not turn into responsibility.
Of all obstacles, the cultural hurdle is likely the most formidable. Indian education, shaped by hierarchy and parental expectations, has long treated attendance as a stand-in for seriousness. For many parents, being in class means learning; for teachers, empty seats often feel like disrespect. So a sudden shift is bound to draw resistance. However, this very discomfort is also the reason change is needed. If graduates are to face the uncertainties of today’s world, higher education has to move from compliance to responsibility, from control to trust. With proper support, freedom itself can become the best teacher of accountability.
The path forward is neither to romanticise autonomy nor to cling to compulsion. A phased, evidence-based approach is wiser. Initiate reforms, evaluate impact on learning outcomes, retention, mental health, and then adapt. Differentiate between professional and non-professional courses, undergraduates just transitioning from school, and postgraduates already socialised in academic responsibility. Above all, autonomy itself should be treated as an educational objective—explicitly teaching time management, metacognition, and self-regulation.
Let’s remember that IIT Dhanbad’s move and the Delhi High Court’s intervention are not ends in themselves, but opportunities. They invite Indian higher education to confront a difficult truth—genuine learning cannot be coerced, and freedom without preparation can collapse into neglect. This reform could become a milestone if universities are willing to do the harder work of scaffolding autonomy, training responsibility, and designing pedagogy that values outcomes over rituals.
If not, it may be remembered as a well-intentioned, but poorly executed gamble. In the long run, the question is not whether Indian students are ‘ready’ for such freedom, but whether institutions are ready to teach them how to use it.
John J Kennedy | Former Professor and Dean, Christ (Deemed) University, Bengaluru
(Views are personal)
(johnjken@gmail.com)
