Indian students, particularly Gen Z, are increasingly asserting their freedom and autonomy and demanding accountability. Now, some of the brightest law students are in the news for the wrong reasons, but Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant deserves some credit for his timely intervention in staying the Bar Council of India (BCI)’s atrocious order about the NALSAR graduating batch; quashing all FIRs against the protesting students; declaring that the BCI has no disciplinary control over the students, and reducing the three-year practice condition to just one year to write the judicial services examination.

The question is not whether the students were right or wrong in seeking a say in their own convocation. The real question is why students are so upset with the governance model of universities that, at times, they not only lose hope but also cross the boundaries of decency and satire. To suggest that this happened simply because of an oral remark by the CJI, which was quickly clarified, is to oversimplify the deeper governance crisis in higher education. How should universities be governed? What is the role of free speech and academic autonomy? And why are Vice-Chancellors increasingly unable to command students’ respect or resolve such issues internally?

Universities cannot function without academic freedom. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention academic freedom but there are number of Constitutions which do have such a provision such as Article 5(3) of German Basic Law specifically guarantees right to scientific freedom (Wissenschaftsfreiheit) as the constitutional right to everyone engaged in scholarly teaching and research. The Constitutions of Japan, South Africa, Portugal and Spain too contain such a freedom. Article 137 of Basic Law of Hong Kong says that educational institutions may retain autonomy and enjoy academic freedom. Ideally, government should not dictate universities what to teach, how to teach and what not to teach. Nor should universities deny this freedom to departments and faculties. Recently, the Delhi University dropped a paper on Delhi Sultanate along with some other papers. Gen Z is intelligent enough to see that such curriculum changes have ideological reasons. University curriculum should ideally be decided by the stakeholders including students.

Academic freedom and free speech on university campuses are extremely important as universities are supposed to provide a special place for reflection, inquiry and discussion. It is nobody’s case that they have any right to defame people or indulge in anti-national activities. If an academic activity involves ‘conduct’ rather than free speech, the state would certainly be entitled to regulate such ‘conduct’. Today, even in the West, academic freedom is under serious strain. Federal funding in the U.S. has been weaponised to reshape campus culture, diversity programmes have been dismantled, and research funding in areas such as climate change has been reduced. Universities have also faced pressure for allowing student protests, including those over Gaza. Both right- and left-wing regimes have, at times, sought to control universities.

History offers many examples — from Arnold Toynbee’s resignation from King’s College London in 1924 over his writings on the Greek army’s atrocities, to the persecution of professors during the McCarthy era. With declining public funding, research agendas are increasingly influenced by funders, corporations, and pharmaceutical companies, making a mockery of academic freedom.

We are witnessing student protests because universities are not governed well. Governments increasingly seek to control universities, and administrations have consequently adopted a ‘control model’ of governance. Most universities remain Vice-Chancellor-centric, while students — who are the very reason universities exist — have little say in their governance. When grievances are not addressed promptly, students feel ignored and suffocated; some take extreme steps. The government is often blamed, but much of the backlash could be avoided if university administrations engaged students in meaningful dialogue and provided timely relief. Vice-Chancellors rarely hold open houses and are often inaccessible to ordinary students. Universities are communities of highly educated faculty and intelligent young people; they require dialogue, trust and openness—not excessive control and surveillance.

The object of universities is to innovate and create knowledge, but knowledge creation cannot happen in a controlled environment. It requires the freedom to question everything and challenge existing ideas. Despite the repeated reverence for ancient India, India’s education system remains over-regulated and grossly underfunded. Its ancient Gurukul system was entirely autonomous, yet, today, India remains far from the National Education Policy 2020’s promise of public investment of 6% of GDP in education. Public investment in education has steadily declined, hovering around 4%-4.1%, with higher education investment getting the smallest pie.

Meanwhile, public university infrastructure has deteriorated and there is an acute shortage of hostels leading to tragedies such as the one in New Delhi, faculty positions remain vacant, and guest faculty are poorly paid. Faculty recruitment processes are faulty with an over-emphasis on ideological leanings rather than merit. Poor teaching frustrates students, while repeated examination paper leaks add to their stress. Eventually, this frustration erupts — not against university administrations, but against the government itself.

We even over-look gross violations of natural justice principles in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. In one case, a Vice-Chancellor not only changed the composition of the selection committee but also chaired it and voted in the selection of his wife. She was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, and the judiciary declined to follow its own precedents of quashing such appointments. Ultimately, the government received the brickbats for the actions of the Vice-Chancellor.

Over 16 years as a Vice-Chancellor, this writer implemented what can be described as the new ‘liberty model of governance’ across three universities. Such a model works when students are trusted and, they in turn, act more responsibly. Students have often felt comfortable in meeting the Vice- Chancellor without appointments, sometimes sharing personal concerns and difficulties. This trust has also made it easier to have frank conversations with them, including when difficult or unpopular decisions had to be taken.

Unlike the ‘control’ or top-down model, the ‘liberty model’ views universities as spaces where even the most unpopular ideas can be freely debated. Students should have a meaningful role in academic, administrative and financial decisions, including faculty appointments, procurement, curriculum design and drafting of university regulations. In older institutions such as Aligarh Muslim University, students even have a statutory role in selecting the Vice-Chancellor. We need to democratise our campuses if we want to address the growing problem of student protests.

Ideological governments may in a few cases prefer candidates who have particular ideological leanings, but merit should not be completely undermined. There have also been appointments of individuals with questionable records and adverse CVC reports, while some State universities face allegations of bribery. Paper leaks reflect a similar systemic failure. No examination system can be foolproof if paper setters, moderators or testing officials are appointed for reasons other than absolute merit and integrity.

If the government really wants to win back the confidence of students, universities must become student-centric rather than Vice-Chancellor-centric. Let us embrace the liberty model and reject the dated and regressive control model of university governance. India’s students deserve nothing less than the best.

Faizan Mustafa is Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, having previously served as Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR, Hyderabad, and the National Law University Odisha (NLUO), Cuttack. The views expressed are personal