New Delhi - In a dramatic clash between judicial authority and freedom of expression, a National Law University (NLU) student has defiantly refused to take down a controversial article criticizing the Supreme Court of India, despite mounting pressure from judges, senior advocates, and his own university administration.

On March 14, Rishi A Kumar, a law student, published an article on his personal Substack blog titled "The Supreme Court of India has No Spine." The piece was written during a study break while he was preparing for exams, intended primarily for a small circle of friends. Instead, it went viral.

The article was a sharp critique of the Supreme Court's decision to ban a chapter from an NCERT civics textbook. The chapter, spanning 18 pages, contained just two sentences mentioning corruption in the judiciary. In response, the Court not only banned the chapter but also blacklisted its three authors without granting them any hearing or opportunity to defend themselves.

Kumar argued that this response was unconstitutional and a clear violation of natural justice. He wrote, "The Court's response was to ban the book and blacklist its authors. You have to admit; this is a very odd way of proving you have nothing to hide."

But his critique did not stop there. He also called out senior members of the Bar who, according to him, instigated the bench without even reading the chapter in full. He criticized the Prime Minister and the Education Minister for publicly backing the ban, stating that they had acted in contravention of their oath to the Constitution. In his view, the judiciary, the executive, and the Bar, all three institutions, were complicit in what he called "educational censorship."

From Critique to Crisis: The Pressure Begins

What started as a student's opinion piece soon became a flashpoint. The article spread rapidly across social media platforms, including Instagram, and drew attention from people Kumar deeply respected. He received messages from across the country and even abroad, with many expressing that they had been silently thinking the same thoughts but lacked the courage to articulate them.

However, not everyone was pleased. While some disagreed with his arguments and engaged in healthy debate, a more sinister response followed.

According to Kumar, judges and advocates from the Supreme Court and various High Courts began making calls, not to him directly, but to his university administration. The complaints were numerous. The university, feeling the weight of institutional pressure, sent Kumar an email informing him of a "spate of phone calls from Advocates of the Supreme Court and various High Courts as well as a few Judges" who were criticizing his article.

The email stated that the "reputation of the institution is at stake" and requested that he "take down the article immediately." It framed the request as being in the "best interest of the university and yourself."

A Veiled Threat: What the Email Really Meant

Kumar did not mince words in his response. He publicly shared the email and his reply, calling the university's message a "veiled threat." He posted another blog where he wrote: " The email did all its work in one phrase. It said, I should take it down immediately in the “best interest of the university and yourself.” What does that even mean? Why is a student being spoken to like this for expressing an honest opinion? And most importantly why is concern being used to mask pressure? Someone chose those words deliberately. Someone who knows exactly how much pressure it takes to make a student comply quietly. My friend called it for what it is: a veiled threat.

But this is not just about me. The message being sent to is that your voice is conditional. That you may speak, but only within limits set by the people you might one day criticise. That your career and your affiliation can be used as leverage if you step out of line."

He questioned the logic and the ethics behind the pressure.

The Structural Problem: When Judges Sit at the Helm of Universities

Kumar's analysis went beyond the immediate incident. He highlighted a deep structural flaw within India's National Law Universities.

Most NLUs, including his own, have a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge as their nominal Chancellor. Additionally, several senior advocates sit on university councils and hold administrative positions.

" I have had the good fortune of working under some very remarkable judges. I do not write any of this lightly or with any pleasure. But an institution is not only its best people. It is also its worst impulses that is left unchecked.

I want to be fair to my university. They are supposed to be a line of defense for their students. They did not do that job. But these are not anonymous internet trolls. These are judges and advocates of the Supreme Court and High Courts exerting real and credible institutional pressure. One cannot just ignore it.

And here is the structural problem: most NLUs, including mine, have a sitting High Court or Supreme Court judge as our nominal Chancellor. So many senior advocates sit on my university’s councils and hold administrative positions. The very people who are being criticized and pressuring us are already embedded into our own institutional structure. I am not at all saying these are the people who did this. But the structure itself has a problem. How can the university be expected to push back effectively? They are quite literally the same groups of people acting in two different capacities", he observed.

Kumar added a pointed observation: "This would never happen at any university with the institutional capital and courage to simply say 'NO.' These judges and advocates will never go there. They came here, because they calculated that this university, and by extension its students, could be pushed around."

"This Article Will Stay Forever"

Despite the institutional pressure, the veiled threats, and the potential risk to his academic career, Kumar refused to comply.

In his response to the university, he made his position unequivocally clear: " I will not be taking down my article. Not now. Not ever.

The article was posted on my personal Substack page and it was written entirely in my personal capacity. At no point did I mention my status as a student of this university. My opinions are mine alone. Any attempt to conflate them with that of the university is clearly wrong. It should be clear that the university has absolutely no jurisdiction over my personal expression. You do not own my voice or my conscience.

Our own Code of Conduct says that you should "respect the rights of students to express their opinions." How can the university kowtow to such external pressures? It is obvious that those who are being criticized will not take it well. The fact that judges and members of the bar are behind this pressure only shows how deeply concerning this is. However, pressuring me indirectly because of my affiliation with disrespects this university and the ideals it supposedly stands for. This would have never been allowed anywhere else.

Also, the phrase that this university has used, "best interest of the university and yourself" is nothing but a veiled threat, and I recognise it for exactly what it is. I wholeheartedly believe that I have acted within my rights and I have nothing to apologise for. Nor should this university feel that its reputation is at stake because its students speak the truth. The truth is that this very act of bowing to outside pressure puts our reputation at stake. I reserve all my rights."

This incident raises fundamental questions about the state of democracy in India:

Can a student be pressured through his university for expressing a critical opinion?

Is it appropriate for judges and senior advocates to use institutional channels to silence critics rather than engaging with their arguments?

When the judiciary bans textbooks, blacklists authors, and staffs review committees with its own retired members, what does it say about the health and confidence of the institution?

Kumar's case is no longer just about one student or one article. It has become a symbol of the growing tension between institutional power and individual conscience in India today. As of now, the article remains online. And the student who wrote it remains unbowed.