They can strike down punishments as disproportionate. But they cannot create new punishments, or enhance existing ones, as it would directly violate Article 20(1):

"No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence."

Students of political thought know well that when it comes to power, the only check on it is more power. All else is either intellectual speculation or distraction. SCI and HCs can do anything until the legislature and the executive decide to push back. Or people come out on the streets, like in Sabarimala. Law is a wonderful subject. But it cannot answer a question that precedes its own very existence. The rules and logic of law are consequences of historical struggles to realign power. The current balance of power between the branches of the government allows courts latitude in some domains. The same court that can do what it wants to achieve justice that it alone can define cannot, at the same time, give you bail against the tyranny of state power. When the balance of power changes again, as it will eventually, new possibilities and newer limitations will emerge.

lol

https://www-barandbench-com.opj.remotlog.com/news/litigation/supreme-courts-full-court-moves-to-strip-rishi-malhotras-senior-designation-citing-sharp-practices

The fresher mindset is a great asset since it lets you learn new things without your ego getting in the way. Look at partners in large law firms who have lost the ability to learn new things since there is no space in their head anymore. Get into something which interests you which you can see yourself do for the foreseeable future, and enjoy the process. Keep up the learning mindset and you will go a long way.

So much misinformation in one post. I was standing right outside his room along with the rest of the crowd (First Floor just so you believe me).

Firstly, the warden pushed open the door, not the students. Infact initially, it was Vansh's own friends who were pleading the warden to not break open the door since his body was right by it.

Secondly, it is so mean to say that it was the student community alone "scrambling to save his life" when it was literally SRMs private vehicle which was used to take him to the hospital.

Finally, he did not die because of 'criminal negligence'. He didn't die because he fell into a pothole in the campus or got electrocuted by a live wire, he died because he literally committed sucide. It can't be negligence when it's a case of fucking sucide. Read the law.

Having said that, yes, the nurse did not know how to properly perform CPR and yes, there is no permanent ambulance in the campus and these are all valid concerns which were raised before the registrar and were accepted by him.

Moreover, there were students during yesterday's Preamble saga who were literally trying to raise the absence of 'SAC' this semester as an issue before the Registrar, all while Vansh's friends were actually trying to raise a valid list of demands before the VC and Registrar.

All of this is extremely disheartening to see.

This is deeply distressing and emblematic of the larger, systemic apathy that plagues NLU admins. Yes, NLUs are government institutions, but must their administrators embody the worst stereotypes of indifferent, bureaucratic red tape from the 1980s? Their blatant disregard for students' well-being is inexcusable. NLUs are meant to be sanctuaries of legal education. Instead, they have become sites of neglect, where students are pushed to the brink with no institutional support.

This year alone has seen an alarming number of student suicides, beginning with NLUD at the very start of the academic year. This isn’t just about compromising the future of the legal fraternity—it’s about basic human lives now. Something must be done. Now.

My go-to recommendation will be Richard Posner. A scholar of Yeats and a brilliant, lucid jurist of first order. So much to learn from him on how to write simply and precisely without losing the essence of the subject at hand. A sample of his work << https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/1829/ >>.

If you want to destroy an institute, increase reservation. Classic examples - MNLU and NLUO. MNLU has perfect geographical advantage but a sub par admin with lots of reservation never let the institute perform. NLUO was on am upward trajectory but they introduced reservation and now it's doomed.

https://scroll.in/latest/873517/centre-paid-vidhi-centre-for-legal-policy-nearly-rs-50-lakh-in-five-years-to-help-implement-aadhaar

Expected. Hope he continues to get paid.

I think JNU CSLG has always been an attractive place though it tends to have more than just lawyers in its PhD cohorts. Very competitive too and the interviews are not always satisfactory. You think you did well when reality is that they have their own interests and its less about you being rigorous and more about whether they can make you a part of their project.