Anatomy of the Autonomy: Dissecting Faculty Freedom at IITB

Introduction

Professor autonomy lies at the heart of IIT Bombay’s teaching philosophy. Faculty members are entrusted with wide-ranging control over their courses, from designing syllabi and setting evaluation schemes to deciding how content is delivered in the classroom. Unlike the rigid templates followed in schools or more bureaucratised university systems in much of the country, IIT Bombay empowers professors to chart their pedagogical paths. This latitude is what makes teaching at IIT Bombay both a privilege and a responsibility.

Building on this philosophy, the Faculty Handbook, regarded as the primary reference for faculty conduct and academic practices at IITB, echoes this very ethos, outlining shared principles without imposing detailed prescriptions. As it describes itself, it is meant to be viewed merely as a guide, and in practice, most professors follow it more out of habit than compulsion.

Some of the better courses in recent times, which have innovatively reshaped learning manifolds, have been allowed to do so through this very framework, relying on trust. But the absence of clear accountability in this delicate balance of trust and self-regulation can at times cause it to go astray. In recent years, several incidents have come to light that have highlighted how this autonomy to teach can often blur into unchecked discretion, paving the way for inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and maybe even playing a part in the growing disconnect between the students and faculty.

Through recurring patterns and representative cases, we attempt to trace how a system built on trust can, in the absence of accountability, drift into complacency.

Fractures in the Framework

What follows is not a catalogue of outliers but a closer look at recurring themes that reflect broader patterns that continue to shape the student experience.

While the autonomy given to professors to teach in their own way is intended to motivate and inspire students, there have unfortunately been several incidents across departments where this intent has not translated into practice.

In most courses, a detailed course outline is shared at the start of the semester, including quiz and tutorial schedules, grading policies, and assessment methods, to provide students with clarity and direction. However, a few professors choose to deviate from this practice, leading to confusion and frustration among students. Students enrolled in an Energy Science core course experienced the negative impact firsthand. One student recounted:

“The grading breakdown was initially split: 30% for a hands-on end-semester experiment and 25% for a theory exam. But just a day before the exam, the entire structure was changed to a single three-hour written exam, accounting for 55% of the total grade.”

Such abrupt changes disrupt students’ preparation and end up impacting their final performance.

Similarly, students in a past Chemical Engineering course also complained that no weightage or grading criteria were shared for the assessments taken. In addition, crib sessions to contest grades were not allowed, and final grades were released without giving students a chance to raise concerns or understand how they were assessed. Such opacity leaves students feeling powerless and breeds frustration rather than engagement.

This lack of clarity is not confined to a single department. In the Mechanical Engineering department, a particular professor has become known for setting arbitrary deadlines and unclear grading practices across multiple courses. In one of their courses, students were made to take a quiz and a viva examination post their end-semester presentations, evaluation components that were never mentioned in the course policy. This incident is not isolated but part of a recurring pattern across this particular professor’s courses, causing undue stress for students across academic years.

This pattern of unclear evaluation extends further. In a particular sophomore-year course, the same professor used a peer-review-based grading system. While this method can encourage accountability when implemented with clear guidelines, in this instance, it lacked any regulation. Students who received poor peer reviews were directly given an FR grade by the professor, without any other grading component being considered at all. This allowed personal bias, conflicts, and manipulation to severely undermine the fairness of the evaluation and unfairly penalised students based solely on the opinions of their peers, further compounding the stress and frustration in the course. Students reported that, despite putting in significant effort, they were left confused and demoralised by the grading in their courses.

The issues escalated further in a third-year core course taught by the same professor, where around 70 students were awarded a DR grade – a placeholder indicating that the course has been dropped and must be cleared in subsequent semesters. In this case, the DR is expected to be converted to a DX (fail due to lack of attendance), which can lower a student’s academic standing.

Despite the serious implications, no official DX criteria was formally (through webmail or Moodle) communicated beforehand. It was communicated verbally in the introductory class. Students received no prior warning about falling short of attendance, nor were they provided access to the attendance sheet, leaving them uncertain about how their records stood. As outlined in the academic calendar, DX grades are meant to be issued before a specified deadline, prior to the end-semester examination, as they bar students from appearing for the exam. However, this timeline was not followed, and students only discovered that they had received a DR grade after final grades were released.

The grades themselves were issued over two weeks late after the semester ended, and even then, students were not given clarity on how they had been assessed, as no course policy had been shared at the start of the semester. Several students we spoke to expressed frustration — not only with the outcome, but with the lack of transparency at every stage. While the course did include structured lab work, many felt the workload was disproportionately high for a 3-credit course. Combined with limited academic engagement, they were left with little to take away in terms of actual learning.

Altogether, the lack of clarity, delayed communication, and disproportionate grading in this course have led many to question whether such practices align with the standards of teaching and evaluation that IIT Bombay seeks to uphold.

Such inconsistency only worsens when professors frequently cancel classes. Every year, students in the Chemical Engineering department complain about multiple professors missing classes regularly. These practices have serious consequences. A few students reported that the missed instruction left them underprepared, not just for the following year’s design project course, but also for core internship interviews, where gaps in technical knowledge became apparent. While it is understandable that professors may occasionally miss classes due to professional commitments or illness, repeated and unexplained cancellations are problematic. Unfortunately, this too is not an isolated problem, as some professors prioritise other personal or professional commitments, such as attending conferences or research, at the expense of teaching, often without compensating for lost class time or sharing necessary materials. It’s important for administrative policies to address and rectify this imbalance.

In a separate elective course taught by the same chemical professor, they awarded failing grades to 28 out of 44 students. Alarmingly, this pattern repeats every year, with more than half the class consistently failing under their unclear and harsh grading practices. While it is understandable that one batch may not live up to the expectations of the professor, a continuing trend year after year points to a deeper issue in how the course is structured, communicated and graded. Such actions jeopardise their academic progress and erode their confidence in a fair and supportive learning environment. 

Another professor in the Chemical Engineering department has similarly gained a reputation among the students for poor teaching as well as poor grading. Two weeks before the semester ended, they stopped teaching altogether, citing low attendance as the reason. This abrupt halt left even those students who were attending regularly without guidance at a crucial time. Such practices show a consistent disregard for students’ learning.

Such instances, often fuelled by ego and power imbalance, have surfaced in a few other cases as well. Multiple students reported an incident in the Civil Engineering department, where a professor lost his temper at a PhD Teaching Assistant (TA) after discovering that students had copied answers during a tutorial. The TA had only been checking whether students had attempted the questions and was unaware that copying had taken place. Despite this, the professor reacted harshly, reportedly threatening to cancel the TA’s PhD in front of the entire class. Students present described the situation as distressing, leaving the TA publicly humiliated and shaken.

This appears to be a recurring pattern with the same professor. In a DIC first-year course, they misinterpreted students standing and wishing them a ‘Good Morning’ as a mocking gesture. It cannot be ruled out that this might indeed have been an act of humour, yet the professor asked three random students to leave his class without any clear basis. The situation eventually escalated to the Dean of Student Affairs, and the matter was resolved by asking the professor to step down from the course. While this ensured the immediate issue was addressed, it also underscores the need for clearer channels of communication and an environment of mutual trust.

These incidents reveal how unchecked authority and power dynamics often prevent students from challenging professors’ decisions or seeking recourse. This can result in the enforcement of vague policies or unexpectedly strict penalties, leaving students uncertain and hesitant to speak up. Exercising control without clear communication or recourse harms students by undermining their academic progress, confidence, and well-being.

More examples of this imbalance surface in the grading process at times. The right to contest grades through cribs is essential in ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation. Cribs allow students to highlight genuine errors and discrepancies. While many professors handle cribs supportively, some, especially in large classes, may hesitate to arrange them or even penalise students by deducting marks if the crib is deemed invalid, aiming to prevent unnecessary disruptions. However, this approach can discourage students from speaking up and ultimately harm those with legitimate concerns, perpetuating unfair evaluations. Professors should view cribs as opportunities to strengthen transparency and fairness, not as challenges to their authority.

We have also observed certain incidents that, while not iterative, are nonetheless deeply concerning and set a bad precedent for future practices. In the Mechanical Engineering department, for instance, a professor was often irregular in conducting classes due to their responsibilities as an institute functionary.  As a multifaceted institution, IIT Bombay offers professors opportunities to engage in a variety of activities and administrative responsibilities; however, these duties mustn’t detract from their core role of teaching. To support this balance, institutional policies should aim to reduce the administrative load on professors actively involved in such tasks, allowing them to focus more on delivering quality education.

Another troubling incident occurred in a course offered to third-year students in the same department. In this case, the professor informed students that if they were unable to attend the quiz they were conducting, they could instead sit for the quiz conducted by another section’s professor. However, they failed to recognise that the other section was significantly ahead in the syllabus due to the faster-paced teaching approach of the other professor. As a result, students who followed their advice ended up being tested on concepts they had not yet been taught. When this was brought to the professor’s attention, rather than acknowledging the oversight or offering a compensatory quiz, the professor retracted their earlier statement and asserted that students should have attended their quiz like everyone else. No redressal or accommodation was provided, leaving the affected students to shoulder the burden of an evaluation that was fundamentally unfair.

Ritual or Redressal?

That said, it is important to remember that institutional mechanisms and bodies do exist for addressing such concerns. Structurally, platforms such as the Department Undergraduate Council (DUGC) and the Department Postgraduate Council (DPGC) are available for both students and faculty to take up their grievances. While professors are expected to bring up matters such as those involving academic malpractices in the DUGC/DPGC meetings, presenting proper evidence of the said wrongdoing having occurred, the students, too, can raise their concerns in these meetings for redressal. These meetings are, in principle, intended to be discussions, much like any other democratic process, where faculty and student representatives jointly deliberate and decide on the matter.
However, in practice, many students remain unclear on how to navigate these mechanisms or whom to approach when faced with issues. This uncertainty, combined with the inherent power imbalance between students and faculty, often makes it difficult for students to speak up. In these cases, professors themselves, who serve on committees like the DUGC or DPGC, may not be the most impartial figures to take action against their peers. Potential conflicts of interest, such as personal relationships and departmental ties, can complicate these decisions. While the DUGC and DPGC typically handle objective matters like verifying cheating with clear evidence, concerns that involve addressing professor behaviour, especially those requiring subjective judgment, can become far more difficult to resolve. These dynamics highlight how interpersonal relationships and shared departmental interests can influence how concerns are ultimately addressed.

As one student representative phrased it, “There are rules, but no one to enforce them.”

When Freedom Works

While autonomy can be misused, when exercised responsibly, it is a key academic strength of IIT Bombay. It empowers professors to move beyond rigid structures and create courses that are intellectually rich and meaningful. Ultimately, what distinguishes a course is not just the syllabus, but the thoughtful and creative approach a professor brings to teaching.

Examples of such innovation abound. Prof. Naveen Bharathi in the Policy Studies department, for instance, navigated the complicated logistical issues in one of his courses on ‘Affirmative Action in India’ to give students a unique opportunity to learn from Justice U.U. Lalit, former Chief Justice of India which helped students gain immense insight into the legal framework of India, from someone who had ruled on the same in his tenure as CJI. 

Across the IDC School of Design, several electives stand out not only for their creative formats but for how they make use of academic autonomy to redefine how learning takes place. Courses like Board Game Design, Introductory courses to Animation, Film Making, Pottery, Handloom Weaving, etc., move beyond traditional structures and into studio-based, hands-on environments. In one Indian Cinema elective, students explored theory during the day and watched films together at night, immersing themselves in form and narrative. In a stop-motion animation course, students began their day watching claymation films and then spent the rest of it working on their own animations, supported by full 24-hour studio access. 

But perhaps one of the most striking examples of autonomy in action is Course on Wheels (CoW), a Chemical Engineering elective that takes learning far beyond the classroom. Over three weeks during the winter break, students travel nearly 2,000 km through India’s western chemical belt, visiting industries in petrochemicals, power, fertilisers, agrochemicals, and more. 

Students frequently describe CoW as one of the most impactful learning experiences they’ve had at the institute — not only for the chance to see world-class facilities like the Jamnagar refinery up close, but for the renewed enthusiasm it sparked for core chemical engineering. Many students also considered the post-visit discussions as unexpectedly, yet extremely formative. Beyond student feedback, CoW has since drawn attention from institutions across the country and stands today as a testament to what teaching can become when faculty autonomy is matched with imagination, structure, and student engagement.

Great Power, Greater Responsibility 

As we have explored in this article, although faculty autonomy is in fact a foundational aspect of any good educational institute, we have observed that the lack of adequate accountability has led to challenges, which are not just one-off incidents but have started growing into patterns with repeated offenders and recurring consequences. Insight does not advocate for a rigid oversight on professors, but rather hopes that the administration addresses some of these problems in the current system. Insight hopes that this article serves as a reminder that such freedom can be most effective when paired with clearly demarcated rules, robust guidelines and redressal mechanisms which leave little room for administrative discretion.

This can begin with simply instituting certain baseline protocols around key areas, such as the disclosure of grading rubrics, evaluation breakdowns, and assessment timelines.