Back
Prof Faizan Mustafa: Law Students Can't Be Trained to Argue by Curbing Free Speech
In a powerful intervention that has reignited debates on in Indian law schools, Professor Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor of (CNLU) and former Vice Chancellor of , asserted that law students cannot be trained in the art of argumentation if their is curtailed. Speaking during a recent educational webinar, Prof. Mustafa argued that universities must function as "liberating spaces" where students and faculty can question authority, challenge established ideas, and engage with uncomfortable propositions. His remarks come in the wake of a controversial directive by the (BCI) Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra—later withdrawn—that sought to stop the enrolment of outgoing NALSAR students over their campaign opposing the participation of the Chief Justice of India in the university’s convocation.
Context: The BCI Directive and University Autonomy
The webinar, hosted by legal commentator M. Kalyanaraman, began with a reference to the BCI’s now-rescinded order. The directive had sparked widespread concern within the legal education community, prompting questions about the extent of regulatory control over student expression. Prof. Mustafa, while declining to comment directly on the actions of the institution he led for a decade, used the opportunity to articulate his broader philosophy on university governance. He described the prevailing model in India as "wrong" and "vice chancellor-centric," where the VC functions as a "bride" who calls all the shots. Instead, he championed a "liberty model" of administration, which he says he implemented at both and NALSAR.
The Liberty Model in Practice
Recalling his early days at NALSAR in
, Prof. Mustafa shared that he received 42 emails from students welcoming him, each echoing the same sentiment:
"We are in prison; come and liberate us."
This, he said, convinced him to experiment with a governance approach rooted in liberty.
"If the purpose of a university is knowledge creation, knowledge creation cannot happen in a control environment,"
he stated.
"Because for knowledge creation, you require raising of questions—uncomfortable questions—challenging the existing knowledge."
He drew a parallel to ancient Indian
gurukuls
that produced scholars like Aryabhata, noting they were not controlled by any state or regulatory body.
"There was no
in ancient India,"
he added, emphasizing that the liberty model alone can help Indian universities improve their global rankings and foster genuine scholarship.
From the Classroom to the Campus
Prof. Mustafa, a noted constitutional law teacher, described a fascinating dynamic in his own career. After teaching his students the importance of liberty, they would later invoke his own lectures against him as an administrator.
"They would say, 'You only taught this. Now give us this liberty,'"
he recalled with evident approval. This intellectual consistency, he believes, is what makes law schools unique.
"Law schools give greater
to their students than traditional universities,"
he observed, adding that law students are being trained to espouse the causes of others and defend liberties.
"You cannot train them in the art of argument by curbing their
—whether in terms of speaking, making cartoons, or any other expression."
The Pub Debate: A Case Study in Student-Led Discourse
One incident from Prof. Mustafa's tenure at NALSAR illustrates his approach vividly. Students proposed a debate on whether a pub should be opened on campus, arguing it would be safer for students to drink within the university than to risk accidents while returning from outside. Some teachers advised him to shut down the discussion, but Prof. Mustafa not only permitted it but attended the debate himself, sitting on the road outside the boys' hostel alongside the students. After a lively discussion, the motion was put to a vote—and the students themselves rejected it.
"Most speakers opposed the motion,"
he noted. The episode underscores his conviction that the solution to "
" or controversial ideas is not to impose a law to curb speech, but to allow "
" and trust the community to self-correct through debate.
Legal Implications and the Path Ahead
Prof. Mustafa’s statements carry significant weight for the legal community, particularly in light of ongoing tensions between student activism and university administration. His critique of the vice chancellor-centric model resonates with long-standing calls for collegial governance and the protection of enshrined in . For law schools, which produce future judges, lawyers, and policymakers, the stakes are especially high. A controlled environment, he warned, stifles the very skills—critical thinking, persuasive argumentation, and the ability to confront opposing views—that are the bedrock of legal practice.
The BCI’s brief foray into punishing student speech also highlights the need for clear guidelines on what constitutes permissible protest within law campuses. While the BCI has withdrawn the order, the episode has left many wondering whether regulatory bodies will again attempt to police student expression. Prof. Mustafa’s emphasis on a "liberating space" model offers a framework: universities should not be enclaves of privilege but laboratories for democratic deliberation.
Conclusion
As Indian higher education grapples with rankings, regulation, and the role of dissent, Prof. Faizan Mustafa’s message is both a reminder and a challenge. He insists that
"any university which is not a liberating space is not good for higher education."
His call to let students and faculty freely question, discuss, and even err—within the bounds of civil discourse—is a timely antidote to the culture of control. For law schools, where the freedom to argue is not a luxury but a professional necessity, his words may well shape the next generation of legal education reform.
