Pointless and fallacious argumentation. Just because one set of religious laws may have certain shortcomings, that itself won't justify another equally inefficient set of laws for another religion. No doubt the Waqfs need to be regulated and this placid minority appeasement be done away with.

First, making clear that I don't have a view on this but would love to see arguments in court and the judgment on this. Having said this, some questions:

1. Do temples have non Hindu administrators appointed under law? Genuinely, don't know this so want to know because this is one of more controversial amendment.

2. Can someone's endowment to temple be revisited? Apparently, this is issue.

3. Government has unilateral power to repossess property in case of dispute of ownership between waqf and govt. And Govt to adjudicate ownership. Any similar provision for temple?

This is what I read in media as some disputed provisions and would love to know about accuracy or otherwise of these statements and comparative provisions for other religions.

I’m so sorry but I feel so so done with this college, so done, i know i have people but can’t burden them anymore, i genuinely want to leave this place and have made my mind, will figure out where I have to live, as i am indirectly disowned by my parents, will not die in this shitty ass place, I can’t burden anyone literally anyone, feel so so lonely, don’t even have a home outside college and didn’t knew college would get this bad, worked so hard for this college and it gives you nothing, literally nothing, it breaks you completely from inside, completely, insaan ko insaan nahi samjh paati hai ye jagah, pata nahi life mei aage kya karunga but will be not in this place for sure. Job lagegi, economic stability ayegi, theek hai bhai, but mere ko nahi chahiye kuch bhi, mai marna qabool karunga but apna zameer nahi bechunga jitni bhi zindagi hogi, ander se khokhla kar deta hai yaar, kisi ko nahi samjha sakte tum, kisi ko bhi.

In western universities, most students are paying for their own tuition. If they don't secure employment, more often than not they bear the brunt of heavy loans. In India, the entitled woke brats are living off their parents, who pay their fees. Hence the universities are bound to the parents, not the students. And the parents won't agree to co-ed hostels.

How many parents do you think would refuse to send their daughters to college if college did not offer sex segregated housing and bathrooms? Why is it that privileged idiots cannot see past their own wants and desires even one bit. If youre woke- alert to injustice- shouldnt you be pro- whatever measure gets more women into universities?

no, if you're from jindal you'll understand how regressive of a space it actually is. starting next semester (and for a brief time in this one), our freedom will be limited. 95% of us are majors, but still cannot even leave campus without parental permission. and even as a senior, you can't stay out all night unless your parent approves your exit. this isn't about sex or intermingling, things like these happen when you try to control grown adults and their choices.

if colleges were respectful of autonomy, there'd be designated hostels for women like you who do not want their hostels to have cross access. think and do better.

Will law schools and other educational institutions in Karnataka now be subject to 51% OBC reservation? https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/70-of-karnataka-population-is-obc-says-caste-census-3491512

When I said only speech against "state" should be protected. I meant that only speech against state should have ABSOLUTE protection. In no way does that mean that speech against non state actors shouldn't be protected. Just that it shouldn't be absolute. What are you even on about

You literally said only speech about state should be protected and everything private can be subject to hate crime laws. What regulation? Why are you trying to squirrel away your argument through word magic? The question is whether someone should go to jail because they said something you or I or even the majority of the people deem to be hateful. You think they should. Thats what this law does that youre supporting. calling it regulation or censorship doesnt make that much of a difference. You can call it reeducation or you can call it puppification- nicer sounding words wont mask the reality of what youre proposing.

Tell me who do you imagine will be enforcing this law? do you trust the police and the judiciary and the state to enforce a law like this without targeting their opponents? Authoritarians never assume that they might not be the ones in power- its bananas.

Look at the government today- who are they more likely to put in prison given half the chance? a comedian who makes fun of "bamans and baniyas" or a comedian who makes fun of opposition leaders? I understand you consider most of the country to be intolerant bigots who should just be censored and not engaged with. But for your own self-interest, doesn't it make sense to limit state power in censoring speech? My god, has law school failed you.

What form? What are you even talking about? Think about what you're writing for two seconds. How do you regulate form of speech and not content? You can write prose but not poetry? You can make a speech but not a movie? That's such an artificial and meaningless distinction that you're hiding behind to make it seem like this kind of regulation can ever be reasonable or constitutional. It is neither. You either have free speech to say taboo things or you dont.

The only limits that should be acceptable to civilized people is incitement to criminal offences. thats it. I miss 2014 when the left was the party of free speech and the bastion of liberalism. What a shame it is that the youth are so ill informed and ill educated that one needs to educate law students on the basics.

because youve made it clear you think the freedoms the constitution mentions in its fundamental rights chapter should be subservient to your conception of right and wrong, beneficial and harmful. You dont seem to agree that people in a democracy should be free to disagree about things, important things, and have a right to say and think what they like. its very anti democratic. Its exactly this stuff that our freedom fighters fought against. You clearly dislike the basic building blocks on which our constitution is built. Article 19 exists. If you want it to not-you dont like the constitution. You dont like what our country is about. You want to live in an authoritarian regime where the government can put you in prison for saying the wrong thing "for the greater good". that is not what I see in the consitution.

speech is not "soft power" what ever that means. free speech actually is a basic human right. If you understood anything about our constitution or political history you would know that. Liberty is the souls right to breathe. It violates the dignity and autonomy of people to censor speech. And it hampers the ability of the human race to discuss difficult matters and actually move forward and find the truth and find some answers.

What actual harm does homophobic casteist racist speech cause? Its just speech. Who is so hurt by speech? Surely if hearing someone say something you dont like causes such psychic harm thats something you need to work on for your own wellbeing instead of forcing everyone else to conform to your morality. Short of speech that incites violence- I dont know why any speech should be regulated at all.

I dont like homophobes or casteists or racists- my answer to them - which is unimaginable to authoritarians- is to engage with them and change their minds. I dont think suppressing their speech reduces actual prejudice do you? In fact it might make them retreat into their bubbles and cause deep divisions in society.

Who decides what are harmful ideas? You do? the majority of the country does? the oppressed victim classes? academic elite? thats the problem you see. In real life people genuinely disagree about what is harmful and its mad to me that you say things like "harmful ideas" without realising exactly how much you might have in common with everyone who supported tyranny. This is not what our constitution is about. Are you sure you want to be in a democracy? do you even understand what that means?

Have interacted with members from Shubhangi ma’am’s team and it’s a really good team. Not fun in a pompous way, but reasonable, cool and hardworking people with low levels of toxicity. There is hardly any attrition though and there may not be vacancies. I wanted to be part of her team myself, debt capital markets was a preference, but had to join their neurotic psycho counter parts in the equity team on the 1st floor instead…. Sighs for the roads that never opened for the taking in life…

1. "The faculty is very well paid." Are you able to elaborate on this, with evidence? Is the pay at or above 7th CPC?

2. "We have some of the best and most qualified faculties that can be found across the country." Again, what more can you say about these faculty. Have they done postgraduate degrees from the world's finest universities? Have they gotten amazing work experience after their BALLBs? Or do they have both - amazing work experience + good LLM and/orPhD?

What do you know of faculty salary? My friends work there. They are being paid the same money that they would have got in a public university paying 7th CPC. "Constant poaching?" How many people from NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS etc. have quit their universities and joined BITS lately unless they really need to stay in Mumbai and GLC or MNLUs were not an option?

I'm a fresher and therefore everything is pretty much new. I was planning on trying my hand at arbitration (International/Domestic). Any input on which office would be suitable for a noobie in terms of learning curve and pay? Looking out for firms/offices in Bombay/Delhi/Chennai/Bangalore

you will find an online article that pathologises every emotion a human being can ever feel. Go on some incel websites that guys there will tell you that youve had your human rights violated because a woman refused you. Thats surely not the standard for actual diagnoses of actually disruptive conditions that require medical interventions.

I don’t understand why A3s here looking to switch now. Every in house is looking for 4-5 PQE+ and not lower.

Finish your SA year, put your head down and get it over with. I’m in the same position and I know its awful to continue but its one more year and it really sets you up.

I’m in a T2 and earning slightly below your pay. Plus at A3 you will be given more autonomy on transactions, being the only associate, run most of the transaction and only flag to PA/Partner when needed etc.