Tamil Nadu Law University Reverses Stance, Supports Student's Critical Blog
The Tamil Nadu National Law University has made a decisive move to support its final-year law student, A Rishi Kumar, following the controversy surrounding his blog post titled 'The SC has no spine'. The blog, which criticized the Supreme Court's position on the Class VIII NCERT textbook issue, generated an overwhelming wave of responses, both supportive and condemnatory, creating a significant academic and legal debate.
University's Initial Request and Student's Defiant Response
After receiving numerous calls and formal letters from individuals identifying themselves as lawyers from Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra, the university administration initially contacted Rishi Kumar. These legal professionals demanded that the institution compel the student to remove his post, arguing it constituted potential contempt of court. In response, the university formally wrote to Kumar, requesting he delete the content to protect the institution's reputation and standing within the legal community.
However, Rishi Kumar delivered a powerfully worded rebuttal, firmly refusing to take down the post. He emphasized that the blog was written in his personal capacity and represented his individual views. "It should be clear that the university has absolutely no jurisdiction over my personal expression. You do not own my voice or conscience," the student asserted in his response, standing firmly on principles of free speech and academic freedom.
Registrar Explains University's Protective Stance and Final Decision
University Registrar S M Balakrishnan explained the institution's initial cautious approach, noting that callers had threatened to escalate the matter to the Bar Council. "Therefore, as an advisory note, and to protect him since he has only two months left to complete his course, we asked him to take it down," Balakrishnan stated. The university's primary concern was safeguarding the student's academic future during this sensitive period.
Following Kumar's unwavering stance and willingness to face external consequences, the university administration reconsidered its position. "However, since he is not willing to take it down and is ready to face anything externally, the university will stand by him. He stood for his constitutional values. Fair criticism of the courts is always permitted, and the top court is no exception," the registrar declared. This represents a significant shift in institutional policy regarding student expression and legal criticism.
Blog Content and Widespread Reaction
Rishi Kumar published the controversial blog post on his Substack platform on March 14, directly challenging the Supreme Court's February ruling that banned the Class VIII NCERT textbook. The textbook contained chapters addressing judicial corruption, making the court's decision particularly sensitive. Kumar's critique focused on what he perceived as judicial overreach and lack of spine in handling educational content.
The post rapidly gained traction across multiple social media platforms, spreading far beyond Kumar's expectations. "It spread in ways I didn't expect," Rishi admitted, revealing that strangers began tracing his contact information to express both support and opposition. Despite the polarized reactions, the blog received appreciation from prominent lawyers including Prashant Bhushan, adding credibility to Kumar's arguments.
Current Status and Institutional Support
No disciplinary action has been taken against Rishi Kumar, who continues to attend classes regularly as he completes his final semester. The university's decision to stand by the student represents a notable defense of academic freedom and constitutional rights within legal education. This case highlights the ongoing tension between institutional reputation management and protection of student expression, particularly when addressing sensitive judicial matters.
The situation continues to evolve as legal professionals monitor developments, but the Tamil Nadu National Law University has firmly established its position supporting fair criticism of judicial institutions while maintaining its educational mission. This precedent may influence how other law schools handle similar controversies involving student publications and judicial commentary in the future.
