Answer

Introduction

Requiring attendance in higher education can shift learning from an active, self-directed process into one of monitoring and control, where obedience is valued more than genuine curiosity. When classrooms become spaces that police physical presence rather than cultivate intellectual participation, universities risk making education feel punitive, undermining the natural growth of critical thinking and student independence.

Body

Ethical Implications of the ‘Banking Model’

• Dehumanizing Hierarchy: The ‘Banking Model’ treats students as passive “containers” to be filled by an all-knowing teacher, stripping them of agency.
  Eg: Paulo Freire argues this teacher-student contradiction reinforces oppressive social structures, where the student’s only action is to “file and store” deposits.
• Surveillance as Pedagogy: Mandatory attendance acts as a surveillance tool, monitoring students rather than fostering a desire to learn. 
• Erosion of Dignity: Penalizing students for low attendance regardless of circumstances violates the right to live with dignity.
  Eg: The court highlighted the 2016 Sushant Rohilla case, where a student committed suicide after being barred from exams, as a failure of institutional compassion.
• Mental Health Neglect: Rigidity in attendance norms often triggers severe anxiety and mental distress among students, balancing personal challenges.
  Eg: The Delhi HC noted that “mandatory attendance cannot become mandatory suffering,” emphasizing the need for mental health safeguards over mechanical rules..
• Infringement of Autonomy: Forcing adult students into a specific learning mode restricts their ethical right to self-directed education. 
• Moral Hazard of Coercion: When institutions prioritize registers over relationships, they foster a culture of “fake compliance” (proxies).
  Eg: The UGC 2025 guidelines emphasize that “encouraging participation” is ethically superior to “penalising absence” to ensure genuine engagement.

Academic Implications of the ‘Banking Model’

• Death of Curiosity: A focus on “signing the register” kills the natural curiosity required for deep academic inquiry. 
• Narrative Sickness: Education becomes “narrative” in character, where words are emptied of transforming power and become lifeless.
  
• Practical Learning Trade-off: Rigid 75% rules often prevent students from pursuing internships, moot courts, or research that offer more value.
  Eg: The Delhi HC in 2025 directed that moot courts and legal aid camps must count toward attendance credits to promote experiential learning.
• Stagnant Pedagogy: Guaranteed attendance removes the incentive for faculty to innovate or make lectures more engaging.
  Eg: The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 calls for student-centric flexibility, which is often contradicted by archaic attendance mandates in practice.
• Standardization over Mastery: The system prioritizes the “magical 75%” over the actual mastery of the subject matter. 
• Discouragement of Innovation: Coercive presence prevents the “free-spirited” exploration needed for start-ups and creative problem-solving.
  Eg: Universities with zero-attendance policies are observed to produce more student-led start-ups due to increased time for industrial apprenticeships.

Conclusion

The shift from a “Banking Model” to “Problem-Posing Education” requires dismantling the mechanical 75% rule for a hybrid, compassionate framework. By integrating digital learning, valuing internships as academic credits, and prioritizing student well-being as directed by the Delhi High Court, Indian universities can move from “knowledge repositories” to laboratories of critical consciousness and curiosity.

DOWNLOAD PDF