We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
"I'm just fundamentally against a setup that combines investigative and adjudicative powers with the same authority. I'm well aware of the CCPA, SEBI and other such frameworks. My scepticism applies to them equally."
In sum, your constitutional idealism – a version that comes from strict separation of powers, which, by the way, is not even practised across the board here in India among regulators, not even in the EU, since a full review appellate forum is in place – now stands in the way of parties having an effective forum to complain about malevolence in the market.
You place 100% fairness above everything, ignoring practical realities and institutional precedent – to the detriment of the object of the Act.
Why is "suo motu" important? I will give you several, besides chopping off 3 months from the timeline by doing away with preliminary hearings.
First, where there is a power imbalance in the market, there aren't many complainants to go around. If a supplier or vendor filed a CCI complaint, they would often be destroying a market relationship. Having no "suo motu" powers forces market participants to risk their capital to seek a remedy for what they believe is unfair. They barely do. Which is also why the CCI is stuck with forum-shopping cases and Hail Mary passes – the real cases of market abuse will not see the light of day, even with the provision for anonymous informants. Any investigation from an anonymous informant will be rife with writs as well.
Second, it is a vicious cycle of the first; no suo motu powers for the CCI encourages impunity for those who do have market power, knowing they have commercial leverage over those who would complain. This isn't new – a simple study of cartel dynamics should explain this. Members in a cartel are not equal. The CCI recently realised this in a set of orders that identified a ringleader. Imagine the number of SMEs in India stuck with one-sided clauses. The MSME Act protects invoices and receivables; Section 3(4) of the CCI was supposed to protect their options. Go to dealer negotiations and see what life-and-death powers people have over someone else's blood and sweat.
Third, the CCI carries a big stick, which was somewhat curbed by Excel Corp and by guidelines that emerged from Ramana's decision. Now you have Big Tech, which is out to shape and size that stick. The stick is being moved from deterrence to a cost of doing business – something manageable. By removing suo motu, you reduce the number of times the stick can potentially hit you, making the CCI risk for management "manageable". Go inside a sales and marketing team and watch the befuddlement when you tell them you cannot talk to competitors. Then go watch the management conversation with them where they "price" the CCI risk.
Finally, there is a brief window for market censure when the risks are not fully realised by the company under investigation and when affected parties are sufficiently motivated not to self-censor. If the CCI were to open a suo motu case and then allow interim order hearings, there would be a window for a party to take advantage before single-party threats and incentives hit back. The CCI fails to realise how parties under investigation can affect the investigation as it drags on in the Indian political economy. Lawyers know this – we all adjourn till the roster changes or till the government and government pleader change.
You reduce institutional capture to just discretion that affects the final outcome of the case. Your concerns exist; I don't deny them. Like how the CCI will now use its discretion in the settlement and commitments regime, which cannot be challenged before an appellate forum. However, throughout the world, the biggest discretion that antitrust enforcers with finite resources face is "prioritisation". Not HOW they analyse a market or WHY they analyse in a particular manner, but WHICH markets they look at and WHEN they focus on them. Discretion is actually far greater in the WHICH and WHEN than the HOW and WHY. The HOW and WHY will be heard by an appellate court. Which and when will not. Further, "WHICH" matters because it determines which resources are applied, and "WHEN" determines how early a problem is diagnosed (leading to ex-ante or post-facto questions).
On Meta, specialised regulatory bodies like the CCI were granted powers to regulate their own procedures and to act as civil courts, but they remain fully subject to writ jurisdiction. The judicial branch could review the bias. Meta elected it, used it and lost it. Too many parties have been abusing the Bharti judgment, in my view, treating it as a case establishing regulatory walled gardens. It does not. Thankfully, there is a High Court decision now stating so. Bodies like the CCI with civil court powers – this was, firstly, meant to be enabling, not stifling; and second, due process was to follow. Instead, over time, tribunals have adopted the worst traits of civil courts and their trappings, with prolonged delays. I will grant you that institutional design is a problem, but so is institutional ossification.
Sub.: Seeking a factual report on the persons instrumental in drafting communication bearing No. BCI:D.5449/2026
Sir,
We have taken note, without the expected amusement, of a Notice purporting to emanate from a statutory regulator, in which an entire batch of law graduates has been collectively debarred, for the alleged crime of studying at an institution where, apparently, someone somewhere had an opinion. We knew that thought crime is to be punished in the current climate but being able to punish someone for their neighbours thought crime makes me covet your post (make me your padawan). This is regulatory stupidity dressed up in letterhead, and we salute the confidence it took to sign it.
In the quixotic spirit of the true factual position the Notice so solemnly claims to seek, we request the following, within three days:
1. a) The names and designations of members present, and the quorum achieved, when it was decided that natural justice is for other people.
2. b) The minutes recording the identity of the reliable sources, so we may assess whether they rank above or below rumour, astrology, vibes, and WhatsApp forwards as forms of admissible evidence. We must ensure that the zen Z virus has not infected the august regulator.
3. c) The legal opinion, if any exists, that permitted an entire batch to be punished for the alleged conduct of a few, a principle of jurisprudence we eagerly await making Bentham blush.
4. d) The name of the person principally instrumental in deciding that convocation guest lists now fall within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council, so that we have a reference to cite as an example of cooption, arbitrainess and immorality we are tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy.
We trust the Council, ever vigilant against dirty politics, shall take steps to stop the zen Z virus from spreading in it. Finally, we thank you for not using gen-AI, claude would stutter to satisfy you.
Receipt may kindly be acknowledged, capriciously, if that's more familiar.
This is pretty much a troll or frustrated entitled student.
I agree that be it living conditions or acads, everything is already in ruins but nothing new. You may remove the post mod.
will the BCI bar it from taking enrolment? dirty laundry or dirty toilets?
https://www.instagram.com/p/DcAm34MEnwZ/?img_index=1
My honest advice would be to pivot unless you're absolutely smitten by TMT as a practice area and do not mind going to much smaller and lower-paying IP/Media law positions.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/8/11/fas-social-sciences-layoffs/
There are enough and more posts on this platform on how law graduates from NLUs should not be going to business schools for further studies, with reasons ranging from naive to atrocious.
The trigger for this has come from a law firm, and when it mattered, they went to a business school. NLUs are not on their radar when push comes to shove on leadership. NLUs may want to reflect on this, instead of being in denial and pretending to treat this as business as usual.
NLUs will inevitably have to downsize their BA-LLB programmes and shift to more market-oriented combinations, such as BBA-LLB or BSc-LLB. This change will shake every NLU to its foundation. In the midst of all this, NLS actually thought it to be appropriate to start an ordinary BA programme.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/8/11/fas-social-sciences-layoffs/
Rian Karanjawala referred his name to SRK but Rohatgi never mentions his name in interviews related to Aryan Khan case.
There is a difference between privilege and not willing to get off your back, either get a top score in clat or work your ass off, or what? the best firms in the country will hire maybe 80 students of the 1.5-2 lakh law graduates per year will hire you off the back of you doing nothing either academically or just showing the initiative to work?
Why not just ask the government to pay you a couple crores a year for nothing while your at it.
Could someone please recommend good chambers in Delhi that do a variety of work?
Also, are chambers better than boutique firms such as Keystone?
Honestly students that think like this shouldn’t go to NLUs. Go to some private law school and buy a degree if that’s all you want.
You are, in effect, signing yourself up for a culture of burnout, characterised by:
1. Relentless 16–18-hour workdays, leaving little meaningful room for rest, recovery, or a life outside work;
2. Crushing and sustained stress, compounded by an artificially manufactured sense of urgency—often created by individuals whose management style is needlessly abrasive, boorish, and corrosive—which, over time, is bound to exact a serious toll on one’s mental well-being;
3. Virtually no meaningful scope for professional growth, particularly where certain seniors appear to believe that belittling, undermining, or diminishing their juniors is necessary to maintain authority and efficiency;
4. A persistent culture of public humiliation, reprimand, bullying and shaming, including instances where individuals are subjected to criticism or embarrassment despite having committed no discernible fault.
These are not isolated concerns. People have been leaving the team in significant numbers, and the pattern is difficult to ignore. The team may have initially succeeded in attracting exceptionally meritorious candidates, in part because of the reputation and stature associated with AS. However, if virtually all of those individuals have subsequently chosen to leave, one must ask what that attrition is signalling.
At some point, the question ceases to be whether the organisation can continue to attract talented people and becomes whether it can retain them.
One cannot indefinitely conceal or rationalise the underlying reality. A prestigious name may attract good candidates, but it cannot, by itself, compensate for an environment characterised by chronic overwork, humiliation, fear, and the absence of genuine professional development.
Take all of these factors into account before making your decision. The name attached to the team may open a door, but it is worth asking whether the environment on the other side of that door is one in which you can realistically thrive—or merely survive.
My objective is to establish how (almost ?) an institution which gave the Bombay based corp law circles so many good lawyers and and even firms (BLC, ANAGRAM, RESOLUT, KCO - FUNDS & TAX, even some big accounting firms) has now next to no existence - a guidebook on what not to do after achieving heights ?
I also wonder if the fall of the UPA govt. has something to do with their fall ? cuz I have been told the same - which does not seem right to be as they did well for a few years post 2014
I was not in NDA in its hay day I am junior looking for greener pastures !
While cockroaches are considering swarm attack what are the NLU student associations contemplating beyond choosing sides? Also what about the CLAT consortium? Bend, crawl, grovel?