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?
When we joined in the first year, our batch had three separate divisions because the class strength supported it. Today, two divisions are merged, and even then the classroom is not full. Even in the middle of the semester, when one would expect attendance to stabilise, the situation was no different. Instead of accepting responsibility for their lack of discipline, many students are shifting the blame onto the administration.
As someone who regularly attended classes and made an effort to ensure I met the attendance requirements, it was disheartening to see students with almost negligible attendance earlier face no consequences. In that sense, the administration’s decision to finally enforce norms is fair and long overdue.
However, the email regarding breaking locks was unacceptable. Such actions should not occur under any circumstance. The administration must ensure sufficient security and proper procedures so that students’ belongings are not put at risk.
To begin with, the idea that the administration has the right to monitor students’ personal lives whether they play games at midnight, watch movies, or choose how to unwind, is profoundly misplaced. GNLU is not a school. It is a residential university where students spend half a decade of their lives transitioning into adulthood. Expecting them to adhere to hostel curfews and moral policing reminiscent of high school undermines the entire ethos of higher education. Students here come from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. They do not need to be parented by the administration.
If we are to talk about discipline, then integrity and fairness must cut both ways. This past semester saw an unprecedented number of students, sometimes 60 to 70 per subject, barred from writing exams due to alleged attendance shortages. Many of these restrictions were based on rules that were either unwritten or applied inconsistently. Several faculty members mark students subjectively, reward personal favourites, or penalise those who express dissent. In some cases, professors who lack expertise in the assigned subject are made to teach it anyway, leading to poor engagement and absenteeism. In contrast, good teachers never struggle with attendance; their classes are naturally full because they teach with sincerity and respect.
The administration’s role should be to create an environment where students want to learn, not one where they are coerced through fear or punishment. When university leadership cannot even issue a clear, confident statement assuring 24-hour medical facilities, because there are none, it has no moral ground to preach discipline. Ironically, even as it fails on such essentials, the same administration takes pride in record placement numbers. But should the purpose of an entire legal education be reduced to placements alone? The real measure of an institution is how it treats all its students, not just the few who secure corporate jobs or pre-placement offers.
The recent hostel controversy is another example of misplaced priorities. The Chief Faculty Warden’s threat to “break locks” on rooms for the purpose of “asset numbering” is not just unnecessarily aggressive, it reveals a complete lack of trust between the administration and the student body. Many students have already reported missing items, broken belongings, and trashed rooms after handing over keys in previous semesters. The problem is not the request for keys, it is the tone of threat and the absence of accountability. An administration that raids hostels at the smallest inconvenience, encourages snitches, and violates privacy cannot hope to foster mutual respect.
Equally troubling is the dismissive attitude toward mental health. To suggest that stress or burnout is an “excuse” is both ignorant and cruel. Students today face enormous pressure, academic performance, internships, placements, and the growing uncertainty of the job market. For many, extracurricular activities like sports, cultural events, or even late-night recreation are essential outlets for mental balance. Yet, instead of recognising this reality, the administration has repeatedly responded with threats, event cancellations, and disciplinary notices.
Ultimately, discipline without empathy is tyranny. A law university should model fairness, justice, and dialogue. The very values it claims to teach. What GNLU needs is not more surveillance, but more trust, not stricter punishments, but more transparency, more regulation that helps students, not fear, but genuine engagement between students and faculty. If the administration expects respect, it must first show it.
Until then, no amount of curfews, lock-breaking threats, or attendance crackdowns will restore the university’s credibility. The students of GNLU are not demanding anarchy, they are demanding dignity, fairness, and the right to live as adults within a university that claims to produce future lawyers, not obedient schoolchildren.
Sitting on your behind does not get you anything.
2. LKS in general has a very friendly and inclusive work environment. The work gets over by 7pm for interns and even for associates it gets over by 8pm.
3. Presentation depends on the team.
4. Learn how to use TMI, taxmann and other websites like taxguru etc.
Go for TMPL Consultants only.
I was in fact, shortlisted for the PPO interview directly but I unfortunately, fumbled it and I am back to sqyare.
1. Sudhir has made Rhodes a priority
2. Students shortlisted for Rhodes are getting excellent mentoring from the good faculty Sudhir has employed. Nandan Kamath (Rhodes India Secretary) has also been made a visiting faculty (different matter whether that is a conflict of interest).
3. Subtle lobbying by alumni.
4. Consequently, other NLUs have declined. A faculty exodus has taken place across the board, so they don't have good mentoring. The leadership is also poor. The present VCs of NALSAR, NLUD and NUJS are all mediocre.
Other NLUs urgently need alumni in charge to up their game.
>These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without' compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an overstatement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:-
>“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country”.
>In another place, he has said:
>“The idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living”. I admit that what .Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can tie no question about it. Had' the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution.(...)
There is much discussion around Originalism. Yet those advocating it today are not, in fact, seeking to restore the Constitution to its 1950 form. What they are really defending are the amendments introduced by the political stalwarts they revere — including the insertion of the terms “secular” and “socialist.” They are right in saying that India’s constitutional architecture is inherently secular, even without those labels. But this argument is now deployed rather selectively, depending on what the politics of the moment demands.
Simultaneously, sections of minority leadership have seized upon the same point to criticise the present government for highlighting conduct that does raise serious governance concerns. We cannot shy away from acknowledging that parallel systems of community-based adjudication — grounded in Sharia norms — operate informally in certain pockets of Kerala and in some towns in the United Kingdom. These are empirically documented realities. And they will inevitably expand when combined with an openly articulated strategy of demographic growth.
On the Originalist side, however, there is a notable inconsistency. Some of the very people who wish to defend the amendments they approve of are also calling for the rollback of amendments linked to Article 370 — overlooking the fact that the constitutional integration of Jammu & Kashmir began decades ago, often through the very political figures whose legacy they champion. This is not constitutional theory; it is selective constitutional memory.
At the opposite extreme, we hear fringe voices within the present establishment advocating that India be formally declared a Hindu state that merely “tolerates” other religions. This is constitutionally indefensible and conceptually flawed. A republic does not “tolerate” its citizens; it affirms their equal standing under the law.
The truth is simple: India’s Constitution has always been a living document. It has evolved steadily and responsibly — through amendments, judicial interpretation, and political consensus. We should be grateful that, unlike some of our neighbours, we have not veered into the kind of extreme, exclusionary constitutional experiments seen elsewhere. But it would be naïve to assume that such dangers cannot surface in India.
This is precisely where the legal fraternity carries a distinct responsibility. Lawyers are not merely participants in the system; we are custodians of its ethos. We are expected to articulate, calmly and clearly, the principles that have held India together — pluralism, equality, and the rule of law. There are fringe elements on both sides of the political spectrum capable of undermining these values. Our task is to ensure that the Constitution remains the anchor of our democracy, not its casualty.
Go to a think-tank or research institute, this is a place where we all can at least anonymously vent our corpo law life.
Also not to forget the entire argument is a silly one.
LNAT–UK Score
Scholarship Eligibility
Scholarship Amount (Per Year)
35–42
75% Tuition Fee
₹5,25,500
30–34
50% Tuition Fee
₹3,50,000
25–29
25% Tuition Fee
₹1,75,000
20–24
10% Tuition Fee
₹70,000
thank u so much for the detailed answer. Any idea about placements? im hearing a lot of mixed reviews
Can we expect any changes now, or status quo?
Those emails feature Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel to former President Barack Obama, and Epstein exchanging thoughts about President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and overweight highway rest stop patrons.
"See you at 2, I ordered sushi for you," Epstein wrote Ruemmler in March 2018 as part of an email thread that began with him sending her a Daily Beastarticle headlined, "How close is Donald Trump to a psychiatric breakdown?"
Those emails came about 17 months before Epstein's arrest on federal child sex trafficking charges. He killed himself weeks after that arrest in a Manhattan jail.
Ruemmler is Goldman's chief legal officer and general counsel.
Goldman Sachs spokesman Tony Fratto, in a statement to CNBC, said, "These emails were private correspondence well before Kathy Ruemmler joined Goldman Sachs."
"Kathy is an exceptional general counsel and we benefit from her judgment every day," Fratto said.
Ruemmler did not respond to requests for comment about her emails with Epstein on Thursday.
In 2023, Ruemmler told The Wall Street Journal, "I regret ever knowing Jeffrey Epstein."
Ruemmler, who served as Obama's White House general counsel and as a federal prosecutor, exchanged emails with Epstein while she was a partner with the law firm Latham & Watkins, where she was global chair of the white-collar defense and investigations practice.
The Journal in 2023 reported that Ruemmler "had dozens of meetings with Epstein in the years after her White House service and before she became a top lawyer at Goldman Sachs ... in 2020."
"He also planned for her to join a 2015 trip to Paris and a 2017 visit to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean," the Journal reported then. The newspaper, citing a Goldman Sachs spokesman, reported that Epstein introduced her to potential legal clients, including Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft.
Goldman has previously said that Ruemmler had a professional relationship with Epstein connected to her role at Latham, but Latham also has said he was not a client of that firm.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/11/13/goldman-sachs-jeffrey-epstein-emails-ruemmler.html
Best Part: University of Ministry of Home Affairs, Excellent connect with government, ports and shipping sector and international maritime organizations. VC-RRU is member of UN International Law Commission and an Authority in Law of the Sea.
Faculty (Dr P Paleri, School Director Mr Sushil Goswami, Ms Tanisha and Mr Ankur Sharma are superb in Law of the Sea) Shri Yash Vardhan is one of the best teacher in Public International Law in school.
During course additional certification to LL.M. Batch (PFSO etc)
Gap (depends on interest) is Less focus on Commercial Maritime Law, courses are based on Law of the Sea, International Law, Post Security etc.
Even if you do get an internship, chances of you actually meeting him/working with him are slim to none. You'll have to sit in the intern basement all day, waiting for someone to call and allot work.
You have to be extremely proactive for SAs/PAs to actually recognize you and allot work to you
Mailed a partner, she looped in the HR and then I followed up with the HR almost 30-40 times to get a higher knowledge link. Thereafter, submitted my assignments and got confirmation.