Prof Faizan Mustafa: Law Student Free Speech Essential for Advocacy

• Prof. Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, asserts that curbing law students' free speech hinders their training in argumentation.
• He believes law schools generally offer more freedom of expression to students than traditional universities.
• The remarks were made during a webinar hosted by The Hindu, in response to questions about a NALSAR convocation controversy.
• NALSAR students had sought reconsideration of CJI Surya Kant as chief guest, citing his inaction on police atrocities.
• Prof. Mustafa emphasized that training future defenders of liberties requires allowing all forms of student expression, including speaking and making cartoons.

It is impossible to effectively train law students in the crucial art of argumentation if their fundamental freedom of expression is curtailed.

Prof. Faizan Mustafa, who serves as the Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), recently articulated a strong stance on the indispensable role of free speech in legal education. Speaking on a Monday, he emphasized that it is impossible to effectively train law students in the crucial art of argumentation if their fundamental freedom of expression is curtailed. This perspective underscores a foundational principle for developing future legal professionals capable of navigating complex societal issues.

In his assessment, Prof. Mustafa observed that law schools, along with their student bodies, generally afford a significantly greater degree of freedom of expression compared to what is typically permitted by Vice-Chancellors in traditional university settings. This distinction highlights a perceived difference in the educational philosophies and operational environments between specialized legal institutions and broader academic establishments in India.

His core argument posits that since law students are destined to become defenders of others' liberties, they must be rigorously trained in the skill of constructing and presenting arguments. This training, he asserted, cannot be achieved by suppressing their freedom of speech, whether through verbal discourse, creative expressions like cartoons, or any other form of communication. This view foregrounds the idea that an open environment is not merely a courtesy but a pedagogical necessity for lawyer advocacy training.

Prof. Mustafa's remarks were delivered during a webinar titled "Freedom of speech in law schools," hosted by The Hindu. The discussion provided a timely platform for addressing contemporary challenges to student expression within legal education, particularly in India. His comments came in direct response to inquiries regarding a recent controversy surrounding the convocation at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law and its subsequent repercussions.

The NALSAR incident involved students opposing the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, as the chief guest for their convocation. The students cited the CJI's perceived inaction concerning police atrocities as their reason for seeking a reconsideration of his invitation. Prof. Mustafa was specifically asked how he would have handled a similar situation if his own students at CNLU had expressed opposition to the CJI as a convocation guest.

While addressing the NALSAR convocation free speech debate, Prof. Mustafa clarified that he preferred not to comment directly on an institution he had previously led for a decade. However, he generally noted his personal practice of responding to student communications, such as written inquiries, within minutes. This approach reflects a commitment to fostering open dialogue and addressing student concerns promptly, a practice that could be seen as a model for student activism legal schools.

The central tenet of Prof. Mustafa's argument is that robust legal education freedom of expression in India is paramount for developing effective legal professionals. He firmly believes that the ability to articulate, debate, and even challenge established norms through various forms of expression is fundamental to a lawyer's future role in defending constitutional liberties. This perspective suggests that stifling student voices in academic settings ultimately undermines their capacity to serve as strong advocates in the real world.

By allowing students to freely express themselves, even on controversial topics or in opposition to authority figures, law schools cultivate critical thinking and independent reasoning. These skills are not merely academic exercises but are essential for future lawyers who must analyze complex legal arguments, challenge injustices, and represent diverse viewpoints. The environment of open discourse, therefore, directly contributes to the quality of lawyer advocacy training and the development of a legal fraternity equipped to uphold justice.

His reflections, partly informed by his own experiences as a student at Aligarh Muslim University, underscore a long-held belief in the power of student voices. This historical perspective reinforces his contemporary call for legal institutions to champion free speech, recognizing it as a cornerstone for producing legal minds that are not only knowledgeable but also courageous and articulate in their defense of rights.

This article reminds legal professionals of the foundational importance of free speech in legal education for cultivating robust advocacy skills and critical thinking. It underscores that an environment fostering open expression is crucial for developing future lawyers who can effectively defend liberties and navigate complex legal arguments, impacting the quality of future legal practice.

Source: Original reporting via The Hindu