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?
Let’s face it, politics is everywhere. At AZB you get to work on list A matters or first of a kind deals, get the bonus and live for another day. That’s better than most firms today
Hence, asked. Any insight would be helpful :)
Previously, it was Partha Chatterjee and so many others from the Greens. Surely there are gems from other parties as well.
But how is it that IT, DRI etc which can swoop in, break doors, get automatically alerted and now armed with AI enhanced surveillance and special powers can do zilch when it comes to honchos?
I am sounding naive. But cannot wrap my head around how brazenly these honchos can get away and these intelligence folks don't even bother looking the other way.
Seniors in the profession, what is the solution for the same?
2. You cannot go up from nowhere on the global map to equivalent of Oxford + Harvard without serious years of effort. The starting gun on that has been fired by Sudhir, and his legacy will need to be taken forward, if it is to be a success later on. NLSIU will need years and years of Sudhir-type leaders before it can get to the stage you are wanting. The key thing was to get it started, which has been done.
3.
(a) In case you haven't noticed, it has been he who has clamped down on the grade inflation that was happening at that uni. Why were so few people getting Rhodes in those years, while now we have already seen two during his reign?
(b) When he was clamping down on bad PhD work and not admitting more than a handful of PhD students, you people were blaming him. Now when PhD work is coming out under his control, you are blaming him, too. Can you at least say what is so average about these projects you dismiss with such a cavalier mindset? What will satisfy you? Him leaving NLSIU? Academia?
(c) Equally, you would blame him for having an Eton-Oxbridge mindset if too few students were admitted. If student numbers grow, you blame him for bad market forces, though I do agree that more could be done to adapt to the changing job scene, and the current way for handling university graduates' career progression is not working.
(d) Your and the critical students' understanding of empathy is not right. You don't hand out deadline exemptions etc just for the heck of it. You give one, very exceptionally, if students have had illness, death of a loved one or other such circumstances. Nothing less.
4. Scholarship opportunities are indeed getting lesser. But that's a worldwide trend. Uni finances the world over are getting tighter and tighter every single day. But that doesn't mean that low-income deserving candidates aren't getting aid. Please set out a blueprint to ensure a better funding model of university funding. Because according to me, Sudhir Krishnaswamy is the type of person who is doing the very best possible under current conditions (and the type of hypothetical I have in mind would do the same).
If you do not have a t1 internship in the next 2-3 months already lined up, likelihood of a t1 having a vacancy and hiring is slim to none, so practically switch your goals to boutiques or T2s and lateral to a T1 when suitable.
Hope this helps.
Just think neutrally and ask yourself if students are not better served studying AI programming and its application in law, instead of what Marx and Ambedkar said? Or what the Government of India Act and Constitutional Debates said? I mean, a communist country like China is embracing tech-centric capitalist education, while pursuing colleges are still teaching Marx!
https://www.indiatoday.in/jobs/story/ai-over-arts-china-scraps-12000-college-degrees-to-make-room-for-more-ai-courses-tchc-2926615-2026-06-15
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3356913/chinas-universities-cut-12000-obsolete-degrees-amid-race-embrace-ai-era
One more from NDA
Some genuine perspectives would be truly useful
Compare that with a platform like Reddit, where moderation is largely reactive. It happens after publication, in response to community feedback, policy violations, or court/ government directives. LI moderates at both stages, before and after a post goes up. So if it already reviewed the content before publishing it, how can it then turn around and claim the protections of an intermediary?
For LI to credibly assert intermediary immunity, the whole platform would have to be fundamentally reimagined. Until then, it's really just a heavily moderated, heavily censored space for anonymous commentary, one that arguably carries content liability for every thread and post published on it.
Happy to be corrected if my understanding is flawed.