Bro what do you mean by "who you call when you have to change those laws?". GLC graduates drafted the constitution and laws for this country way before NLUs existed lol. Also how many NLU grads choose a career which makes any real impact? Majority of them work in corporate with all their "training". The truth is no one would have joined NLUs if it wasn't for their lucrative packages. Colleges in India are nothing but placement agencies be it IIMs, IITs or NLUs. All of these institutes focus on theory none of them make you job ready. So imo it's better to adopt the GLC model and get job ready before job as NLUs grads learn everything on the job while you know it already.

Ashutosh Senger. He is an Advocate-on-Record and was Jr. Std. Counsel of DRI before High Court of Delhi. He joined SAM's environmental law practice when they were setting it up and was also briefly associated with Shardul Shroff's team to work on ESG. He has a degree in both law and environmental management. He is a litigation lawyer who does ESG work out of interest as a lot of clients are ESG consulting firms.

Yes, this is real. MS got a list of some associates' who forwarded it to their personal mail. Out of that list, he fired those he didn't like and retained those he liked. There was no conclusive proof who actually pasted it on LinkedIn. He simply just fired people to set an example.

Having two exams in a day is not inhumane. This has been in practice not only in many law schools but also across disciplines for decades. This used to be a practice even in various schools and (state) board exams.

Interestingly, if one of the dual papers is a back log subject, it is reasonably expected that the candidate had an additional semester to prepare for it - so it's not like the back log candidate is studying for an additional subject in the same time frame as other candidates who are preparing for lesser subjects in the same time.

Also, demanding staff to work an additional day or asking university to pay teachers for overtime (which will be paid for by the state and / or all students, even the ones who are not giving back log examination) is really a sign of significant entitlement. The money can be better utilized elsewhere.

Himanshu Sinha. He is the tax head at Trilegal and primarily takes up transfer pricing and international tax matters. Seen him argue multiple times in ITAT and High Court and must say that his fundamentals are very solid. I gather that TL tax disputes team has been picking up lot of work recently. Vishal Kalra is also a great lawyer.

If your comment is to be taken at face value then a client would give a partner only one hamper no. How can one hamper be distributed across multiple members of a team (most teams have multiple members). Think before spewing venom just for the sake of it. Just because your partner is a cheap skate does not mean that others are like that. My partner gave us a lovely hamper which had personally selected items.

It is the thought that counts.

Hey, fourth year at some NLU, this might seem like a dumb question/thought but is it okay/ethical if i don't tell people, even my friends that i have secured another tier 1 internship, on top of the one i already have (especially for someone who has not done any tier one internship till now, and is not very academically inclined). I just don't want to attract too much attention to myself, or am thinking too much and no one actually gives a fuck?

Your argument makes several valid and necessary points. It is indeed true that the language of the law in India is overwhelmingly English. It is also true that English proficiency, particularly the ability to think, argue, and write in English, is an indispensable professional skill for law graduates who wish to operate in the higher judiciary, in corporate law, in policy, or in academia. The deficiencies in Indian school-level education, especially in the humanities and social sciences are real and deeply entrenched. Rote memorization, poor training in analytical writing, and limited exposure to rigorous argumentation have long been endemic features of the system. The consequences of these failings are not abstract and even India’s best universities spend valuable time teaching students how to write coherent paragraphs, rather than training them to produce original scholarship or sophisticated legal argument.

However, it is crucial to locate this problem within its proper socio-economic context. The root issue is not that Indian students as such are incapable of analytical or linguistic sophistication, but that the Indian education system is profoundly unequal. Access to quality English medium education is overwhelmingly determined by parental income. What we often label as "merit" in competitive exams is, in practice, a proxy for privilege - the ability to afford the kind of schooling and extra coaching that cultivates English fluency and critical thinking. The system, therefore, rewards those who already start from an advantaged position and excludes many intellectually capable students whose families simply cannot buy entry into that world.

This inequality becomes self-reinforcing. The "meritorious" cohort appears large because India’s population is large, but it is drawn from a narrow and socio-economically homogenous band. The educational system then designs its "standards" around this band, mistaking privilege for preparedness and replicating the same elite bias at every level - from school curricula to university admissions to professional hierarchies. In such a context, to make English proficiency a decisive gatekeeping criterion without parallel investment in equitable access to English education is, effectively, to lock the gates further.

You are right that universities must "play hardball", but the battle should be fought on two fronts. One is the demand for academic rigor, which must not be compromised. The other, equally important, is the demand for structural fairness: that rigor should not be defined solely by the cultural capital of the elite. The challenge is not to abandon English, but to democratize access to it. That means pushing for systemic reforms- teacher training, curriculum redesign, early exposure to multilingual and critical pedagogy -rather than assuming that raising the linguistic bar alone will somehow lift standards.

And ultimately, this is not just a technical or policy question - it is a value choice. We must decide whether our legal education system exists to reproduce the social elite, or to identify and nurture potential wherever it resides. Upholding English proficiency as the gatekeeper of legal merit may serve the former goal, but it undermines the latter. The values that guide our admissions, curricula, and institutional practices reveal what we believe the law itself should stand for: access, fairness, and justice or exclusion dressed up as excellence.

Until the foundational inequities in schooling are addressed, “merit” will remain a distorted mirror: it will reflect privilege more faithfully than potential. The goal, therefore, should not be to dilute standards, but to expand genuine opportunity to ensure that the next generation of bright legal minds is drawn not only from the children of the upper middle class, but also from the vast reservoir of talent our current system leaves behind.

Bro, many people from abroad including NRIs have served as Judicial Law Clerks to Supreme Court Judges, including sons and daughters of Ministers. Even the famous scholar on Legal Professions, Nick Robinson an ex-JGLS and ex-NLSIU faculty, was a Law Clerk to a former CJI. Good work on your creative interpretations. O.W. Holmes Jr, Antonin Scalia and Ronald Dworkin would be rolling in their graves.

Chief Justice Gavai's decision reported in the Press to reserve two Supreme Court of India Law Clerk positions for Bhutan Law Graduates is incorrect. Law Clerks assist Judges. Under the Indian Constitution, Judges must be Indian Citizens. As a corollary, their researchers must also be Indian Citizens. And under what power has Justice Gavai decided this. The Chief Justice has no such power. Besides being completely unconstitutional and illegal, this decision is also arbitrary and takes away a valuable resource from Indian Citizens.

To understand the objection, consider whether Justice Gavai could have declared that two law clerk positions in the Supreme Court of India will be reserved for Law Graduates from the USA? He could not have done that. Similarly he cannot legally or constitutionally do this for Bhutan Law Graduates.

Another thing, Why was Justice Gavai having official meetings with Heads of States in both Bhutan and Mauritius. If these were merely courtesy meetings, it would be unobjectionable. But the press reports project the Bhutan meetings of Justice Gavai with the King and the Prime Minister as furthering Bhutan India ties. The Judiciary in India does not play a constitutional role in external affairs of the Country. These kind of engagements by our Judges are a form of Judicial transgression into Affairs of the State and must not be encouraged by the Government of India. These kind of engagements by Judges transgress into the domain of the executive and are contrary to the principle of separation of powers.

Why must these questions be asked. It is because accountability requires asking questions and offering critiques. India does not have Kings of any kind. Everyone including the Judiciary must be held to scrutiny.

Hello,

I am a final year student from a T1 NLU, I have decided to enter litigation straight after my law school.

As I still have roughly 6 months to graduate, can i get some advice on how I can improve myself to be a better junior, any good book/resource recommendations, also i would like to work on my hindi proficiency any tips and recommendations would be highly appreciated.

Thanks

A first gen law student.

Saw a post by a celebrity couple. Their daughter married her bf, both Jindal grads. Wish them both the best and it's cute to see that they stayed together after college. ❤️

Now, there are many such couples among Gen X/Gen Y NLU grads, but is it as common among Gen Z? Or is is too early to judge? Coz it's actually pretty challenging to maintain a relationship after college these days. The job market is tough, so you can't say if you will be in the same city. Jealousies can also come in if the girl gets a better job than the guy. On top of that, lots of pressure and mental health challenges, which can take a toll on your relationship. And monogamy is going out of fashion.

Any suggestions on how to stay together?

Hello everyone,

Context, currently a econ undergrad at T1 Delhi University College (hindu/stephens/hansraj). Exploring the possibility of transitioning to law through a 3-year LLB. Had cleared CLAT-UG earlier with a 700–800 AIR.

My interest in law stems from both intellectual curiosity and some family exposure to the profession (non-corporate).

Just want to get advice, opinions and guidance from industry folks and seniors who have more experience. Before I make a commitment, I’d appreciate candid insights on:

1. How to determine whether a legal career (litigation, corporate) is the right fit.

2. Whether pursuing an LLB at this stage is a sound move compared to alternative routes (like an MBA/UPSC).

3. The best institutions for a 3-year LLB in India (I’m aware of DU, NLSIU Bangalore, and Bhopal) and potential global options (UK/elsewhere).

4. The professional scope and career trajectory for 3-year LLB graduates, both in India and abroad.

I’m looking for advice, honest guidance and reality checks from practitioners and people already in the industry, who’ve seen this path from the inside.

Cheers!

As an equity partner you need contacts, unless you are one of those execution partners who are given the equity tag for retention purposes. The rain markers need to be influential and part of the elite social circles to be able to get work and maintain relationships with top bosses and promoters. There are exceptions of course but the above is the norm

Thank you. My primary motivation is to gain a solid understanding of this subject. However, being from DU, the placement opportunities here are quite limited, which makes me a bit concerned about finding my way into the corporate field. That’s one of the reasons I’m considering this course. I’m hoping it might help me navigate internships and freelancing opportunities better. The reviews for LawSikho are generally positive, though a few mixed ones have left me a bit uncertain about their services. Lawctopus, on the other hand, seems quite reliable, however doesn't come with a diploma and neither it's recognised by govt.

And that very same old NLU has also churned alot of good Senior Advocates, which you forgot to mention.

Now tell me, of the people graduating today or those who did between say 2005-2019ish, or even today, where a good majority of these NLU graduates choose a law firm, how many of them will become such judges/SAs? True, their contribution and share would increase, but it will never be the same or even close to TLCs till the day NLUs stop producing clerks joining law firms.

Get it thru your head - people in law firms may call themselves lawyers- but at the end of the day, as regards the OP's question- these law firm clerks would never ever know and get into politics. Every single politician, or even a very high majority of them, have been from litigation.