Integrity is not a privilege. Not wanting to attend classes or read a lot as a law student is akin to not wanting to see blood as a medicine student. If you don’t like the law - if attending classes is of no interest and reading about the law is a chore- go do a bba/bcom whatever. MBAs get just as much if not more money in this country and they don’t study a lot. Go do that.

It’s disgusting to cloak a lack of integrity in claims of being disadvantage. Poor people have just as much if not more integrity than rich people. And I’ve found that poor students at law schools are more driven and dedicated than their rich counterparts.

A fair point. Nevertheless, in the spirit of arguing from the other side, is the profession of law in India realistically habitable for those who join it “late” in terms of career opportunities and potential discrimination? Just a query and without taking anything from your well-argued point.

Fair point. Ten minutes go quickly in a high-stake situation like interview. Regarding the lack of questions, did you get think that perhaps the rest of them did not see your profile/pedagogy/research as relevant in terms of how they want their academic programmes to be taught? Thanks and all the best.

It felt weird because only one person(the Chair-VC) asked questions, and the rest stayed silent the entire time. I cannot comment on the questions, but they didn't ask me anything about my subject area, but something entirely different. I also felt that the short time was a hindrance, as how can you judge someone within 12-15 mins....

are you kidding me ? you sound like someone who hasn't ever worked in gen corp. There is soooo much application, new regulations to maneuver your way around almost always, new companies trying to enter into new spheres always. I know people with 7+ years of PQE who still end up doing new things on a regular basis, there is no end to diversification unless you really want to be a cynic and limit everything to calling it just a legal opinion. Like dude, it's hardly a legal opinion on the same thing ever. I mean, that's like reducing litigation to just filing a case after a case.

Regarding your first two questions, answer is no. Please improve your reading comprehension before wasting the time of others like this. I simply gave a general account of how power is operationalised in India’s democratic politics. That is all. I made no comment on my own view of it because that is not the point here. I am happy you have read Mehta; I think everyone should. But it only further underscores my point. In a democracy, you have to work to make your argument count. “Educate, organise, and agitate”, as the fellow said. Become an intellectual, join civil service, or contest election. If you want change in policymaking, you have to put yourself on the line instead of yapping all the time like some school-grade game theorist about balancing competing interests.

Imagine trying to defend something as corrupt and rotten as the Indian bureaucracy as an example of constitutional democracy. What a grim joke. Stop pulling the straw man. And stop putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about abolishing the civil service. Read the constitution again. Civil servants are there to assist the representatives of the people in carrying out their decisions in accordance with the rule of law. That is it. Everything else is tangential. There is nothing that Vidhi can do unless the representatives agree first.

Sometimes I forget how utterly ignorant I used to be as a school student. The age at which your fellow classmate completed their SAT and gained admission at their desired place of study, I would not have even known what SAT was, much less being capable of imagining to go another country for education. Oh well, the world is what it is. Thanks for the reminder.

Once again, this is a top-tier comment that the good moderators ought to mark as “featured”. Really wish if you could do a separate post on this subject since you are obviously experienced and well-informed about it and there seem to be a fair number of students here who may be looking to do an LLM in the near future, domestically or internationally, and who would surely benefit from your analysis. Again, thanks for such a comprehensive perspective.

You said that you have litigated for 3 years (the city you have not mentioned)- that might be an impediment for you to join the Big 4, especially your litigation background is not something they would be looking for. Same goes for GC or any M&A team. If you join any corp team, be prepared to face a complete discount of your lit experience and prepare to start as an A0.

Joining an in house will be a prudent option- as your litigation background will be something which would be of use to them. You would also be getting decent work life balance as well. However, be at peace with the fact that the salary will not be upto the law firm standards.

Alternatively, you can consider joining litigation team in a Tier 1/Tier 2 firm- the pay will be higher than what you were getting into the chambers, and your lit experience will also count.

Long story short, each option is doable. You just have to bite the bullet for couple of years.

SJA may not have a say on the successor but it can propel an early departure and/or do other things that will upset the calculi of the shadowy interests.

VC is a "front wo/man". VC will be whoever is perceived by the powers that be to be best suited to serve those "interests". When such candidates(s) have been identified the search committee will complete the ritual.

DD, JB or any others in the alphabet soup doesn't matter.

Strong have friends.

If you are lost and lonely - then it means you have driven yourself to a position of weakness.

So first drive yourself to a position of strength.

Strength is when people are dependent on you.

To create dependencies - you need to provide value.

If despite providing value, you still don't get those dependencies - congratulations, you are discovering you are grazing only at the baselines.

If 12 hour working is your problem, then you need to first make sure that your senior is dependent enough on you to listen to you, and thereafter you persuade them to bring down your working hours.

You will have to do this workplace negotiation yourself. You are right in being apprehensive that you may lose clients and high profile work - for which you are better off staying in the same office (until you get hired somewhere), and becoming senior enough first so that when you exit - you leave with a whole team. That is when big ticket clients will come along with you.

Yea Gen Z is getting fucked up. From my personal experience, when we yap too much about mental health issues, we affirm and validate that which may just be an illusion or a subjective experience. Suddenly we make the unreal real and then we can't escape the matrix of our own subjectivities. Speech is silver. Silence is golden.

Blogging is sufficient. Papers require a lot of time spend on citation and plagiarism rules, which are irrelevant for jobs. For jobs, you need to demonstrate conceptual clarity - for which blogging is sufficient. Of course, citations and all are needed but it can be done without strict academic rigour.

It only means you haven't done enough reading of the law. I also had challenges in comprehending what was required, and I kept researching for 10 days for one single legal query. Couldn't make sense of what was the need behind the query, and whether my resolution was even addressing the problem. I always had a nagging doubt that my output is missing the mark by a mile.

I had my time with therapists also, but yea therapy is just like a painkiller. You let some days pass without therapy, and then the pain comes back all over again. What is needed to kill the pain is actually taking some action on it.

I will shorten my elaborately long and delayed journey of self-inquiry by boiling it down to just one thing. Work on what you feel a lack of. That's the way to satisfaction and inner peace, joy and happiness.

What is it that you feel a lack of? From your OP, I get it you feel a lack of:

1. Not able to understand proposition (this is because of a lack of prior familiarity with the proposition or the elements constituting the proposition).

2. Inefficiency (this is because of a lack of prior work experience. Efficiency is a result of iteration and repetition).
3. Loser (this is because of a lack of Wins which is a compound effect of the first 2 lacks discussed above).

Now you just gotta work on your lacks. You can become an expert in any field of law in very slow 10 years. Law isn't vast enough to need more than 10 years (if you have chosen a narrow specialization). Rest of your life is just iterating on it and expanding your network. So, give it enough time. Give it enough repetition. Be slow with yourself. Time is on your side.

"When a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act, 2012 and also under the provisions of the IPC or the Information Technology Act, 2000 then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree." The finding in Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of UP [2025] GCtR 613 (SC) needs discussion.

I have my internship coming at SAM in april. I am looking for something in the corporate field but I am unsure if I should take GC, PE/VC, M&A, or etc. I have prior exp in GC, funds, financial regulation (one internship each). Can anyone help in terms of hiring + able to move somewhere else (like inhouse or other field/team)

PQE-13

Net Worth-18 crores. Made money during the covid market crash. Took everything out from the bank and put it in the market. Defense stocks zindabad. But otherwise my post tax annual saving right now is about 65 lacs annually (including bonus). Ensure that me and my family have a comfortable lifestyle.