The strict attendance criterion of 66.67% imposed by Lady Shri Ram College  significantly impacts a student's journey to develop academically, professionally, and personally. As students, we choose to engage in internships, part-time jobs, and performing societies not only to enhance our learning experience but also to craft a life beyond traditional classroom education. This rigid attendance requirement stifles our growth by penalising students who are actively taking steps to broaden their horizons. A personal story of a student in college reflects the same: 

"I'm from the Psychology Department, I'm currently working  6 jobs total to keep everything afloat. 

Rent, fees, basic amenities, there are times I walk around with dirty hair because to pay for shampoo. 

My friends have had to "gift" me basic amenities this semester.

In the midst of hustling to afford all the  thousands of rupees_ worth of printouts of drafts through the semester, I've gone to college 8:30 am - 4:30 pm, got home, and worked 5 pm - 2 am on many days. 

You just cannot get out of bed at some point. Every second feels like it's "wasting time" I could've spent working for a new job. 

I'm also on anti depressants and anti anxiety medication which I need to further work to afford, or I couldn't survive all this.

Through this all, I've maintained about a 60% attendance, and I simply cannot do more than that, I'm sorry. 

If you fail me this semester, it's gonna negatively impact my jobs, and my overall income, and it'll end with me coming to college even less."

• The real-life impact of this policy is far-reaching and deeply inequitable. Students with 50–55% attendance, accumulated due to genuine commitments such as internships and part-time employment, face the same penalties as those with 20–25% attendance who have made no such efforts. This blanket approach serves neither group fairly and unfairly detains students in core subjects for shortfalls as marginal as 5–7%. No distinction is made between a student who is absent without cause and one who is absent because they are working to build their future — and that distinction matters enormously.
• The consequences of detention extend well beyond the classroom. An Essential Repeat on a student's academic record renders them ineligible for a significant number of summer internships and graduate opportunities. Many recruiters maintain strict policies against hiring candidates with any repeat on their marksheet, irrespective of the circumstances that led to it. Students who were detained due to attendance shortfalls caused by legitimate external commitments now find career doors closing before they have had the chance to step through them. The very institution meant to prepare students for professional life is, through this policy, actively undermining their entry into it.
• This inequity cuts deepest for students from lower economic backgrounds. Many students at LSR work part-time jobs not by choice, but out of necessity — to fund their own education and sustain themselves through college. These students carry an exceptional burden: balancing academics, financial pressures, and the demands of daily life, all while striving to secure a future for themselves. To penalise them with detention for attendance shortfalls caused by the very work that makes their education possible is not only unjust — it is a failure of institutional conscience. LSR should be a place that celebrates the resilience of such students and builds systems that support them, not one that compounds their hardship.
• Compounding these concerns is the administration's recent handling of the undertaking process. Students were asked to appear in person to sign documents with little to no prior notice, despite having been accessible throughout the semester. There is no satisfactory explanation for why this was not addressed when students were on campus, why adequate notice was not provided, or why digital alternatives or authorised representatives are not being permitted. In the absence of these provisions, students are being compelled to incur travel expenses of upwards of ₹15,000 at short notice — a cost that is entirely a consequence of administrative oversight, and one that falls most heavily on those least equipped to bear it.
• Finally, and most fundamentally, students have never been offered a clear or reasoned explanation for why this threshold exists, why it is fixed at 66.67%, or what pedagogical purpose its rigid enforcement serves. We are expected to comply without question. A progressive academic institution owes its students transparency. Rules that govern academic futures must be grounded in reason and communicated with respect , not handed down as mandates to be accepted without dialogue.

   The Solution

The purpose of a college education should be to equip students with the freedom to manage their time thoughtfully and independently, not to confine them to inflexible classroom requirements that leave no room for the broader development that defines a well-rounded individual. A reformed approach to attendance is one that is fair, transparent, and cognisant of the diverse realities students navigate  is necessary.

We call upon the college administration to consider the following measures:

1. The Attendance threshold should be reduced to 35% as a more equitable percentage  that acknowledges the legitimate demands placed on students beyond the classroom or entirely eliminated.
2.   Verified external commitments — including internships, part-time employment, and other documented obligations  should be recognised as valid grounds for attendance exceptions, evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
3. An attendance compensation mechanism should be introduced, allowing students to demonstrate academic engagement through alternative means where physical attendance has not been possible for justified reasons.

-With respect to administrative processes,

1. We urge the college to implement digital options for signing undertakings and other mandatory documents, and to permit submissions through authorised representatives where in-person attendance is not feasible. 
2. Any future administrative requirements must be communicated to students with sufficient notice and with full consideration of the financial and logistical implications for students who are not local to Delhi.
3.  We also call on the administration to engage in open, transparent dialogue with the student body regarding the rationale behind existing attendance policies. Students deserve to understand the reasoning that governs their academic lives, and the institution stands to benefit from a relationship built on mutual respect rather than unilateral compliance.

By signing this petition, you are standing for an educational environment that respects individual circumstances, values holistic growth, and holds its administration accountable to the students it exists to serve. Let our voices be heard - so that achievement at LSR is defined by merit, effort, and potential, and never shackled by policies that fail to see the student as a whole person.