See this video of the protests.

"Gali gali main shor hain, hamara VC chor hain".

Any self-respecting person would resign after such scenes.

https://x.com/bhk_shubham/status/1969735454653092204

It seems finally there is some good news on the New VC recruitment front, out of the top 4 contenders there are strong rumors that a Prof from IIT Kharagpur who is currently on deputation as VC and a Professor from IIM Calcutta are leading the list followed by a Professor from North Bengal University and another VC of a National law school based in central India, in all probability Prof from IIT Kgp will be heading NUJS because of his academic credentials, IITKgp connection and patronage of the strong power centres who also appointed Prof. Chakrabarty in 2019

Is it true that while the protests took place, the SJA had also organised Dandiya Night and the usual liquid festivities? Isn't it also time for GB to set the SJA house in order? How about looking inwards? Performing protests while also cosying up to powers that be for personal gains of few while the sheep get....

Then in most situations you will be allowed Repeat Exam (maybe different nomenclature in ur uni), In Repeat a suffix -R will be mentioned to indiciate that you took Repeat Exam. But, some NLU's have rules they will treat treat repeat as your first attempt (and suffix -R will be not be mentioned) if you had not given Endterms for medical reasons/ moots, seminars/university prog/ other similar grounds deemed fit by VC.

Again ask the Faculty/Exam Dept/Uni website for the rules

A senior adv in bombay hc once told me something along the following line "Litigation is a marathon, only the people with the strongest resolve last. Most people will leave. Unless you have ZERO doubts - do not join litigation. Even if you have zero doubts, they might come up later. However, having doubts right now is a VERY GOOD indicator that you should probably not invest everything into litigation"

I think you should intern w the adv till you have to join your T1 firm. Tell noone of this internship. and if by then you have zero doubts - join. If you join your T1 job

Let us first understand this entire situation as a lawyer. First, Why are you students demanding his resignation even if its an 'allegation' of sexual assault? As students of law you must know that mere allegation without any stronghold evidence does not hold any good in the eyes of law. Today you as students are protesting based on an allegation, in future, you all are going to hold high offices; if someone brings any allegation against you, would you want your junior colleagues or students to run to the streets demanding your resignation. At first, a person must be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Sadly we forget that.

Second, as lawyers don't you all think that the SC erred in its decision to include the allegation in his resume, evenif it was a mere allegation? How can you, as law students, not question the decision of the Apex Court when it ordered the inclusion of an "allegatio"n in his Resume, even when it was never proved as sacrosanct. As students of NUJS we should also think about it.

Third, you all are 'frustrated' with the lack financial transparency in his tenure. Why has no RTI been filed demanding for such transparency??

Fourth, "systematic pattern of administrative failure" is highly subjective as it is too wide enough to understand the series of events which led to such exasperation. As students of law dont you think that you should have categorically enlisted those demands and claimed that with all logic and your legal acumen?

As prospective lawyers such questions must be clear in the minds of our young students, otherwise it would simply mean beating the drums with others without even applying your own legal acumen behind it.

Kindly ask these questions to the students protesting.

Former associate here: The management has been repeatedly informed by several outgoing associates about bad seniors who cause attrition in the specific teams, but no action has been taken. The HR doesn't even pretend to try to check why associates are 'actually' quitting in the teams with extreme attrition. Bottom line: They don't care so long as the partners keep rolling in the cash.

Oh man!
Let me break that for you.
I work in a ministry, and not just bureaucrats, but all the officers here enjoy a high-class life. They all live in Lutyans, enjoy high-class parties, visit different countries for bilateral/multilateral negotiations, represent the ministry/country on multinational forums, etc. I am talking about clean officers who do not get involved in corrupt practices. If you factor in their salary as well as other benefits (which we have to pay for), an officer with 10 years of experience easily enjoys benefits of around 30-35 lakhs. It might not be enough for most of us, but they reach home by 6:30 on most days.

5-6 cr is peanuts. 20 years into practice, the same person if they were successful in litigation would be earning atleast twice of that. if a rainmaker, then even more. All the stuff you said which can be ONLY be accessed through alaw firm career? Rubbish. Anyone in litigation would be earning far more, with much more satsiforactory work and no clerical work like that in a firm, and afford/access the same.

You seem to be living in a delusion where you think that the work these glorified clerks who go by the misnomer corporate lawyers have any value addition to the field of law, or that you do anything that requires the application of what is called brains, but I guess such classes would not understand that, for they have already chosen or were misguided into choosing a clerical "job".

First, law is a profession and there cannot be jobs there. The fact that you glorified clerks consider it to be a job speaks volumes about you all. Second, why is law called a noble profession, and who are the most well known lawyers? The ones in litigation, of course. Even our freedom fighters, a good majority of law makers in the pre and post independence era, were lawyers who practiced law instead of doing clerical work that you all do. Someone/some people have already addressed your misunderstanding of the figures of the income of lawyers, so no point in raising that, other than asking you a very simple question - how many of the A0s, or whatever term you clerks use to describe the menial job you do, end up becoming partners? Your attrition rate is so high, its laughable. The sort of work that you do - in desks in shiny offices, are similar to any other desk job. You have no USP of your own other than the fact that you all go around telling people that you are corporate lawyers.

Y'all negotiate and draft transactions? Have global exposure? Sure - you can call it to be whatever instead of clerical work. I'll put in what you people fail to realise - you are like a coffee machine. A coffee machine, produces alot of things - coffee of various types, that is. Ofc, someone can make their own coffee without it, but they use it for the convenience. That's what you people are. Coffee machines. Just some convient bunch of clerks making coffee and doing nothing. Some clients are indeed crooks and as such litigators have to run behind fees, but overall, even if they don't realise those fees, they'd still be outearning what you clerks earn. Yes, you people have stability. But guess what? With that stability, there comes a stability in your work too - the same clerical work that you and seem to be so proud of. A clerk or a xerox machine operator in a lawyer's office/court neighbourhood contributes more than what you do.

No point in responding to the personal attacks you make because that's what you clerks are capable of doing when not doing your clerical job.

You say the difference between corp law and litigation is that of delivery? and because litigators deliver/articulate well and hence they're good at performance, which is not a proof of legal wisdom? This. The sheer lack of knowledge shows that you are in corporate law. Only stupid people who have no idea how things work can say such things. To any person, if they are to name any lawyer, who would they name? The ones in litigation. These are the same people who defend your rights and have carved jurisprudence. These are the same people who have contributed to judgements which you people sometimes apply to your clerical work. Please don't insult litigation by saying that its a performance of law. You people have zero contribution towards law, have no role in law, and just do clerical work within a set template. That's the reality.

On a side note - aside from all these fights and debates, may I offer you a genuine piece of advice? A very neutral one indeed. Please don't do corporate law. You will ruin your life there doing clerical work. If you want to do law, do real work - get into litigation.

you honestly have made the point that this person was making. On money, and on growth trajectory. Yes, corporate lawyers have a clearer growth trajectory, but let's be clear - their work is hardly intellectually stimulating and worth anything. Second, on the finance aspect, sir, with the deepest of respect, you see right there - 3-4 Cr or even 8-10cr p.a. That amount, to any other reasonable person, would be alot. But in relation to an equally successful lawyer in litigation? That's peanuts. Just peanuts. In addition, in litigation, multiple posts of honour come up - judges of HC/SC, AG, SG, etc. etc, and at the very least, a senior gown. What do you get in corporate law? Nothing. A shiny corner office with a nice view, which any other successful person in a different field would also have. Corporate law is nothing but clerical work.

You see I don't know about the beef, but let's get something clear. Corporate law is correctly dismissed to be glorified clerking because of the nature of the work. The personal brand that you say, hardly exists, even after someone has really become successful. At the 20-30 PQE stage, someone who made it big in litigation would be far better known than someone in a firm. Yes, no doubt your clients will be loyal to you, whether in litigation, or in a firm. The 6 tasks you mentioned are nothing but mundane stuff that have no contribution to law. It's the same as drafting a Sale Deed, or a Scheme of Amalgamation. There is no application of mind, and its honestly clerical in nature.

Everything you’ve written is utter rubbish. It is a mix of lazy generalisations, cherry-picked statistics, and personal digs masquerading as “analysis.” Your post reads less like reasoned argument and more like a desperate attempt to defend corporate law by tearing down litigation. Let’s go point by point and put the record straight.

You keep harping on Salve, Rohatgi, and “top 0.01%” as if they’re irrelevant. Absolute rubbish. Even outside the top tier, an established designated senior or a counsel with 15–20 years’ experience earns significantly more than most law firm partners. Consider this: even a non-superstar HC litigator can charge ₹50,000–1,00,000 per appearance, handle 3–4 matters a day, plus outstation briefs, opinions, and arbitration matters. That’s ₹1.5–2.5 lakh/day, ₹7–10 lakh/week, and ₹30–40 lakh/month, easily surpassing a mid-to-senior equity partner’s annual take-home. This is average, minimum baseline, not Salve-level billing. Calling it “outlier” is pure deflection. By the same logic, equity partners in law firms are also “0.01%” since most associates never make it there. Yes, the first few years are tough — litigation has a steep entry barrier. But dismissing the entire profession because juniors struggle is intellectually lazy. That’s like dismissing corporate law because first-year associates review NDAs all day. Career trajectory matters. By year 10–15, a competent HC litigator is comfortably billing ₹2–5 crore/year, sometimes more, without the ceiling of law firms, which cap at ₹3–4 crore for the vast majority.

Also, stop romanticizing. Drafting repetitive contracts, compliance filings, and standard SEBI/FEMA submissions is exactly what clerical work is: minimal application of mind, replicable, and largely formulaic. Rare complex deals aside, a junior associate could do it tomorrow. In litigation, no one can replace a skilled counsel; every argument, strategy, and outcome depends on independent thinking and adaptation. Corporate lawyers operate within the law; they do not formulate it. They structure deals around statutes, regulations, and precedents. Litigators regularly shape the law itself — through novel arguments, constitutional challenges, and judgments that set binding precedent. That is why history remembers litigators, not corporate associates. No amount of “billable hours” or contracts equates to the intellectual weight of courtroom advocacy that changes law. You say global exposure? Most Indian corporate lawyers are passengers; foreign firms do the strategic heavy lifting. Intellectual complexity? Drafting a SHA does not match arguing a high-stakes constitutional case. Stability? Fine, corporate law gives predictable salaries. But predictability is not success — it is safety with a capped upside. Litigation is high-risk, but the upside is exponential.

The worst of all, you claim “performance isn’t law.” Wrong. Courtroom advocacy is law in action. Persuasion, argument, and strategy determine whether law or contract holds in practice. Your neat drafts and filings are meaningless if challenged; litigation requires intellect and delivery where it matters. Corporate “performance” is largely invisible, bureaucratic, and replaceable. Because of this do we have the Basic Structure Doctrine, and so many other jurisprudence. What have you corporate lawyers contributed to the field of law? Nothing but mere contracts and documents. Litigation, once you establish credibility, is merit-based — clients decide your income, not the management committee. And even successful law firm partners don’t get their names on the wall. They remain bound to the firm’s hierarchy or start their own firm only to repeat the same grind.

The “<1% outlier” argument is misleading because it cherry-picks only the entry-level struggle of litigation while ignoring what the career curve actually looks like. Nobody denies that the first few years in litigation are financially brutal — but that’s a filtering stage. The point is: once you survive that stage and build a practice, the earning potential dwarfs law firm salaries.

Even leaving aside the Harish Salves and Rohatgis, an established litigator with 15–20 years of experience — not a superstar, just a competent, recognized counsel — routinely charges ₹50,000–₹1,00,000 per appearance. With 3–4 matters a day, you’re already at ₹1–2 lakh/day. That translates into ₹20–30 lakh/month, i.e., ₹2–3 crore/year, just from appearances. This is before adding retainers, arbitrations, written opinions, and outstation briefs, which often double those numbers.

Compare this with law firms: the oft-quoted “₹8–10 crore equity partner” is itself the top 1%. The more common reality is ₹3–4 crore at the upper partner level, and even then after 20+ years of grinding within the firm’s pyramid. So if you’re going to dismiss litigation earnings by saying “only the top make it big,” then by the same logic, most associates in firms never reach equity partnership either. The fair comparison is average successful litigator vs. average salaried partner — and on that metric, litigation is at least on par, if not higher.

The Mukesh Ambani analogy doesn’t work here. Ambani is a one-man billionaire story. In litigation, there isn’t just one “Salve” — there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of counsels in Delhi and Bombay quietly billing ₹2–5 crore annually. That’s not “once in a generation.” It’s a tier of the profession that is very much real and accessible to those who survive the early years.

On nepotism — yes, it exists in litigation. But pretending firms are free of it is naive. Partner tracks in law firms are riddled with favoritism, rainmaking politics, and gatekeeping. At least in litigation, once you’re in, clients decide your value. Your courtroom performance and results can break the glass ceiling in a way firm hierarchies often don’t allow.

So the real picture is this: law firms give predictability and early salaries, but with a capped upside. Litigation is high-risk, high-reward — but the reward side is not mythical. It is demonstrably true that mid-tier seniors earn at levels most partners will never touch. Ignoring that reality to claim only the “top 1%” make it is simply statistical sleight of hand.

Your comment makes several assertions which deserve to be addressed in order.

Let me outline them first, before responding:

1. Corporate law work is not “clerical,” it involves complex regulatory strategy.
2. Litigation is less lucrative and only a handful make it; corporate lawyers earn more on average.
3. Senior advocates thrive only because law firms brief them; clients come through firms.
4. Corporate law offers a clear, stable trajectory whereas litigation is risky.

First, on the clerical nature of corporate law

Yes, your work is clerical. The fact that you recite acronyms like FEMA, SEBI, and FC-GPR does not transform the nature of the work. These tasks are largely compliance-based, bound by prescriptive regulation, and executed within pre-existing templates. There is little scope for genuine application of mind—your discretion is curtailed by statute, circulars, and pre-set deal mechanics. The real commercial decisions are taken by promoters and bankers; you are the scrivener who reduces them to writing. That is precisely why senior corporate lawyers are replaceable by younger, cheaper partners, whereas litigators’ experience cannot be substituted by juniors.

Second, on financial comparisons

Your financial argument is selective. Yes, lawyers at the district level often earn less than Tier-1 associates. But that is not the relevant comparison. When comparing litigation with corporate law, the fair benchmark is the High Court and Supreme Court, because that is where the same class of clients operate—and where corporate lawyers and litigators intersect. At that level, the disparity is stark. The absolute top seniors may charge ₹20 lakhs a hearing, but even an average designated senior, or a counsel with 15–20 years’ standing, would be charging at least ₹50,000 per appearance, with 3–4 matters a day. That alone amounts to a minimum of ₹1 lakh a day, ₹5 lakhs a week, and roughly ₹20 lakhs a month—translating to around ₹2 crores annually. And this is a conservative baseline, not counting outstation matters, arbitrations, opinions, or conferences. Law firm partners at the same stage, even salaried or junior equity, very rarely match those figures.

Third, on Seniors relying on law firms for briefs

This point collapses on itself. If corporate lawyers are as “strategic” and “competent” as you claim, why must they brief outside counsel at all? Why not argue their own matters? The answer is obvious: because at the highest level, it is courtroom credibility, reputation, and advocacy skills that matter—not your mastery of FC-GPR filings. Firms brief seniors precisely because the counsel’s face, not the firm’s drafting, wins the case. To say that seniors survive on law firms is to misunderstand the dynamic; in reality, law firms rely on the stature of counsel to lend weight to their matters.

On risk and stability

Litigation certainly has a longer gestation period. But risk is inseparable from growth. The “stability” you cite in corporate law is in reality a treadmill—PQE raises tied to billable hours, culminating in partnership where even equity comes without true ownership. That is your stability - a delusion. Doing nothing intellectually stimulating. Its your mind which is stable. A litigator, by contrast, builds a personal brand, a body of judgments, and eventually a practice independent of any firm. The trajectory is steeper, but the rewards—both financial and intellectual—are higher.

Litigators and corporate lawyers do inhabit different ecosystems, but the distinction is existential. Corporate lawyers may bill hours and accumulate salaries, but litigators build names that command respect across the Bar and the Bench. History remembers the advocates who argued precedent-setting cases, not the associates who drafted a flawless compounding application. That is why the most celebrated names in Indian law—past and present—are litigators, not corporate partners.

So before you accuse others of “ego validation,” reflect on why you need to defend corporate law with such hostility. Because the louder your protest, the clearer it becomes that even you are not convinced by the supposed “fulfilment” of being a glorified compliance clerk.

His statement to Indian Express suggests that VC is likely to approach the SC again concerning the unprecedented order. He is likely to use the farcical and hapless student protests as evidence of victimization. While the headless chickens quack about, NKC came out stronger. Game, set, match. NKC.

As if litigation is something very good.

More than half of the litigators are all hat and no cattle. The rest are working as hard as Corp guys and earning peanuts while their seniors enjoy their life in the cushy cabins with their pay cheques.

It’s better to be a glorified clerk rather than being a meagrely paid hustler Every rose has its thorns buddy.

Fair enough but asking anyone to leave without giving sufficient time to settle and perform is harsh. even best of associates need sometime to settle. In the same team, there are partners who had joined as an associate (and performed badly initially) but were given time to perform and that paid off for Ravindra. It is a sad reality that no one wants to invest time in associate development. Also this team needs to acknowledge that there are some 4-5 partners all of whom have a different style of working and therefore it is understandable if an associate needs even more time to settle down and start performing as per the individual standard of each of these partners. I hope Ravindra and CAM are taking note of this specific comment because all these tier 1 firm boast of robust associate development programme but the ground reality is that no one wants to or has time to do this.

Hi, I am in a state government law college right now, after my first drop year in 2024, I couldn’t get any NLU, but i know i can perform quite better, because i was actually targeting some different exam in my drop year, and i happened to have a moderately good score in clat but actually the ranks are messed up, and in addition to that, the ambiguity in the question paper of 2025 and the time limitations i personally faced, ended me up with this moderately good score..I feel that I can perform way better if i adjust my reading speed, and practise more this time.

Coming back to my question, the thing is, I don’t have any interest in pursuing a career in corporate, litigation or even in judiciary, i am interested in fields like academia, legal writing, policy making and research opportunities abroad.

So should i appear for clat and target the tier 1 colleges again this time (it would be my third attempt and i will be turning 20.5+ till the time I join, and 25.5+ when i finally graduate, which is kind of bothering me a lot) or should i stay and grind in my current college, I am actually quite skeptical about this for a few months

There is so much information all over the internet about the big corporate placements that makes the nlu tag worthwhile, while i didnot find anyone talk about how impactful the nlu tag will be if somebody is targetting research from prestigious unis abroad. Is there really any difference in NLUs and state government law colleges when it comes to stuff like academia or research abroad opportunities, given that i try to get the most out of the state government college. What noticible difference in opportunities will i really face

Have interned with the team in the past. The lead of the practice works out of the Delhi office and has one other member there, while another mid-senior member sits out of Bangalore. My sense is, they probably want you to intern in the Bangalore office which is why they'd have said this. Either way, it's a single team so you'd get work from them no matter where you sit, even Mumbai, for that matter..