You are missing the point. Marriage is not the disqualifying criterion. It is the decrease in work performance that can result from the demands of factors such as marital relations that is the problem. At the same time, if the prospective employee has already stated that their marital relations will not affect their work performance then that should be the end of conversation.

There is a difference between not hiring someone based on the fact of who they are (in your example, a pregnant woman) and which is definitely impermissible and not hiring someone based on the fact that they cannot contribute to the job in the same measure as everyone else. A candidate, on account of her pregnancy (or, in another example, their disability), can then be disqualified, not because she is pregnant (or disabled) but on the basis of difference between what is expected of them and their actual performance. It is easy to dismiss this as semantic trickery but it is not. At the same time, companies can (and should) also come up with policies to assist those whose performance is affected not from their lack of skills or experience but due to factors not entirely within their control. There is a solution to this but it requires us to first acknowledge the real problem at play.

This is an interesting conundrum. On one hand, it is improper to discriminate on the basis of one’s sex. On the other hand, the employer is within their rights to want to assess the suitability of a prospective employee’s performance in terms of their skills, experience, and avalability at the workplace. Now, to the extent that a prospective employee can be trusted (and they should be unless there is a factual reason not to) when they say that their availability at work will not be impacted by their marital relations, then that is no longer a criterion to disqualify them. But if they do acknowledge otherswise, then the employer should be free to take that fact into account with other criteria in determing their suitability in the firm.

Not just law, everywhere people are complaining that Gen Z employees are too lazy and entitled. This whole generation has been brainwashed by social media to believe that capitalists bosses are oppressors and employees are oppressed. I will tell you a real story. One Gen Z girl forgot to bring her laptop to work. Her supervisor scolded her and asked her to go back home and bring it to the office. Just a regular scolding like a teacher, nothing offensive. This girl cried and complained to the boss that her supervisor is toxic, harsh etc.

Even liberals don’t support him. Journalist Neelesh Mishra (former husband of Nidhi Razdan) has called for criminal action.

https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/ranveer-allahbadia-slammed-for-making-inappropriate-jokes-on-samay-rainas-show-neelesh-mishra-says-meet-the-perverted-creators-9827413/lite/

ICDR - main regulations like 5,6,7

Minimum promoter shareholding

Schedule VI, ICDR

Concept of control

PAS-4 for QIPs

Company law basics like the different types of issues, allotments, how to perform basic corporate actions. That’s pretty much it. Cap marks is very hands on, not much theory till you get to a senior associate level

I have 16 years of work ex as an independent lawyer and my gross receipts were only 45 lakhs in the previous financial year. Litigation. My counterparts in corporate make 2x - a lot of which gets pissed away in rent, kids education and paying an EMI for a car. Taxable income - take half. Kharchas are cray cray in metros. Live in one. Have 0 in the bank and a few lakhs in ppf and stocks. I feel like shit.

Don't take a 30L loan for this. The market is oversaturated with lawyers and there's no room for mediocrity. Your symbi degree will keep you behind every NLU out there. Not worth 30 lakhs for sure.

DSNLU itself ought to be abolished. So many of these new NLUs are so poorly governed (in terms of faculty recruitment, doctoral research, under-graduate academics) that they actually damage whatever brand association the tag of being an NLU used to provide while gleefully plundering the hard-earned money of a student’s family by virtue of that tag.

Recently, members of a NAAC inspection team that assessed Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (KLEF) have been accused of financial corruption. Incidentally, “in the overall NIRF rankings, KLEF performed better than IISER Pune, which ranked 42; IIT Ropar, which ranked 48; IIT Mandi (72); and IIT Patna (73). It also did better than NIT Warangal and NIT Calicut, which were ranked 53 and 54” as per << https://indianexpress.com/article/education/cbi-naac-bribery-scam-andhra-university-centre-accreditation-9824953/ >>

Now granted that this particular news does not concern institutes/departments/centres that offer legal education but it does raise following questions given that the methodology for assessment in NIRF is same for every participating institute. It is also not the first time that such apparent irregularities have been observed in NIRF between well-established institutes falling behind relatively newer ones.

(1) How reliable is the data submitted by institutes to NIRF?

(2) Is NIRF an adequate source of information for prospective applicants to assess the quality of an institute?

(3) How can NIRF be reformed to better safeguard against being hijacked via data manipulation?

Only a fool would believe they are 'valued' in a foreign country. White Americans will happily allow you to work there, until they perceive your growth as a threat, after which you'll either have to 'americanize' yourself (Calling yourself Sam instead of Sameer), or obey the status quo. Do pursue your goals of the American Dream if you have a very strong base there already, or are willing to be a Tier-II citizen in a country led by Trump of all people...

Those belonging to cardinal zodiac signs will make good lawyers, ie Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. See here:

https://bedthreads.com.au/blogs/journal/cardinal-fixed-mutable-astrology-signs

Turns out NALSAR has stopped allowing non-nalsar domain email ids from emailing nalsar email ids due to the menace of anonymous emails on their campus. Have heard that these anonymous emails are like a high school confessions page with people ranting about other people and gossiping about people's breakups and whatnot. How childish? What is going on? Do you NALSAR kids not have anything better to do? Because of the mess you've made, it has become that much harder to get in contact with certain profs or students or groups on campus because none of my emails are going through.

The only lesson is that when a political party is running both the state government and the municipality then it does not get to avoid responsibility on pollution and failing to keep the streets clean. Achievements must be analysed in proportion to the power at hand. For too much power too little was achieved. There were other factors as well, of course, like a central government hell-bent on sending every member of the state government to jail on charges that will probably never stick in the final judgement. But ultimately, the state government, will all the external constraints imposed on it, did not do as much it could have, according to its constituents.

could be. The income tax relief for the middle class was also announced just 3 days before the polls.

But again, i don't think one can ever really pinpoint at one particular factor and accredit as the cause of victory. Voting is highly subject, with each individual prioritising different things from a specturm of ideologies and promises of each party. At the end, it all boils down to persuasive value and building a well-resonated narrative, be it anything.

Credentials of Arijeet Ghosh: https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/jindal-global-law-school-calls-jk-india-occupied-kashmir/

Credentials of Shruti Pandey: https://www.opindia.com/2021/10/shruti-pandey-jindal-global-llaw-faculty-hindu-untouchability/

That they did all this during their classes and from a position of power as teachers is a textbook example of infecting pedagogy with blatant partisanship in service of indoctrination.

People whose professions provide them a public profile, such as officials, businessmen, teachers, etc., are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is intellectually rigorous and professionally decent. They may disagree among their own tribe or with the wider public opinion. But it does not behove them to be crude in their expression or to engage in blatant partisanship for their cause. They are not allowed to excuse their failure to behave with decency by accusing others of being indecent. That is the bargain between them and the public: the public respects them for their integrity and accredits them accordingly and they owe a duty to the public to be honest in their analysis without being swayed by the prejudice of their own and others.

Your last point is incorrect. You say that someone who is ‘A’ cannot be ‘anti-A’. By that logic, a human being cannot hate other human beings, much less kill or injure them. But it is a fact that human beings can hate other human beings and can kill or injure them. Similarly, one can be a Hindu or Muslim and still be Hinduphobic or Islamophobic, respectively.

As an aside, we do not know whether the good professor would consent to be described as a Hindu. Many Indian intellectuals from Hindu background, i.e., whose parents would consider themselves Hindu, have made a habit of playing down their own cultural heritage — the same heritage which enabled their family to not indoctrinate them into an exclusive creed — just so they can establish their ideological purity among their fellow comrades. Because they see their cause as progressive, they do not consider their own intellectual conformity as a problem.

wow, neither of you knows the law. The law is that there is no hate speech in India. Unless she was actively inciting violence, it isn't criminal. And it's ridiculous and identitarian to argue that a member of community x cannot commit hate speech against that community- that's not how the law works. Anyone can commit an offence under Section 504, 295A and 153A of the IPC.

Honestly looking at how yall talk I really worry about lawyers in this country not knowing their ass from their elbow.

I always find this kind of request sus. It seems you dont actually want to write in good faith and observe easy to follow plagiarism rules. You instead want to get away with as much plagiarism as you can. If turnitin tells you that your similarity report is at 20% and the university overlooks anything up till 15 you will only move things around and paraphrase to get to 15% instead of actually making sure your project or memo is your own work representing your own ideas. Its hewing to the technicality of rules rather than the spirit of anti plagiarism rules. Which is that youre not learning if youre plagiarising.

FWIW I went to fancy ivy place for my masters- they dont give you turnitin access there. You either know youve done the work honestly and done everything you can to avoid plagiarism or you dont. this is a uniquely indian thing- to give students access to software so they can pre-check whether their submission can squeak by or not.

If you are looking for a good conceptual understanding of the main legal subjects, then there is only one good option in your list - NLSIU Bengaluru. It is miles ahead of the other domestic options when it comes to its current faculty strength and course offerings. However, if your goal is to secure a job with a commercial law firm, you will be competing with the students in the 5 year Integrated BA,LLB programme. That would require considerable efforts that go beyond the coursework - namely pursuing strong internship opportunities, building a diverse portfolio of co-curricular engagements and producing serious legal writing before you finish the programme. In its current avatar, NLSIU will demand a lot from you, but the efforts made at a younger age will lead to immense benefits in the long-run. The next best option is JGLS but the fees will be more than double than NLSIU.

The exact reason I have zero respect or trust for many of these human rights NGOs and think tanks. I think the Modi government has done a good thing by curbing foreign funding through the FCRA. Why do activists here need foreign funding? What can’t you raise your own funding here?

Little intro: I am 18 years old and gonna join a college this year. Couldn't crack clat so planning to join a college in Bangalore. All this time i wanted to pursue corporate law with plans of doing cs but recently I had the oppurtunity to interact with a few advocates. I've started to like litigation and now I'm confused how to go about it. For now my goal is to just join a good college but still this is running on my mind.

Your opinions and advice would really be appreciated.

Dr. Arun Mohan, SA, wrote a 2 volume book called Courts, Justice and Delays. These volumes critically analyse all the provisions of CPC and also suggest possible reforms. I came across this gem in my senior's library. These volumes can be a good place to start, for anyone wanting to write about the CPC.

You have actually made a valid point. Most people haven't understood your question. You are light. There is not rational purpose why the HCs in the Three Cities have an Original Side and the rest of the State does not. In fact I would call it a violation of Article 14 on some level. Since suits of the same value go before different classes of judges. 1cr in the provinces goes before a District Judge and 1 cr in the HC goes before a HC judge who gets paid more and has more experience. It is something the Bar Associations should challenge.

For contrast, the High Court of England & Wales has an Original Jurisdiction over all of England & Wales and the Judges sit in Circuit Benches and hold court all over the territory. The original side exists and people don't have to even go all the way to London to access it.

This is a constitutional aberration, and it is something that the AAWI of definitely challenge.

Hey guys, a brief background:

I am from a T1.5 college, top 10% of my batch, 4th year, love litigation and have interned only in lawyers' chambers till now. I secured an internship with a T2 firm [not disclosing name and location, but in a T1 city] (how they selected me - they only know) in their disputes practice, which they are known for. So this is my first law firm internship. I took this internship for the reason that I wanted to see how a law firm works and if I am cut out for it.

Coming to the interns part, of the all the interns that are in the firm at the office I am at, only one-third are in corporate, and for one of them it is their first corporate practice area internship. These people in the corporate teams always come and give work to interns no matter which practice area they are in. Today it happened to be my misfortune [no offence to those in that area - I just don't like the work, and don't want to do it] and it is quite a lot. These people know that I am in disputes, and yet they are giving corporate work. How do I deal with the same? On a friday evening these people gave me alot of work to do - that too by the weekend. I have also heard that these corporate people say that the work is urgent but it isn't, since its due perhaps a month or so later.

I am not saying that I wouldn't want to work or anything - just that I don't like the nature of the work they do and are making me do. I would rather go to court, draft petitions, SLPs, WPs, etc.,. prepare list of dates, research on propositions of law, go for arbitrations etc., but cannot do this sort of corporate advisory and regulatory compliance work. Had I been given that work for the weekend, I would not have complained. I have interned for over 12-14 hours a day in weekends in a lawyer's chamber. Thats really not an isssue for me.

Would really love some advice on how to deal with these associates and tell them no. I have already used the 'I already have work from XYZ in disputes' thing. Also, another issue is interns come first to the office, followed by the corporate people, and then the disputes - who come around 11-12ish. So there is a good chance they'll see me empty handed and assign me work saying its urgent.

Help is appreciated. Writing this in frustration at 12am while doing that clerical corporate work

Honestly avoid Samvad. It is a terrible place from what I know. No learning is worth humiliation. When you start off as an A0 even if it means less pay, you want to go with a firm where someone will actually take an interest in your career instead of treating you like a number in a computer. Their high attrition rate will tell you everything you need to know. Here's how you judge where you want to work. Do a search on Linkedin with "Ex Name of Firm" See how long people worked at a place before their left. The firms where more people stayed, are the firms where you want to be. This can also in many cases be a Tier 1 like SAM and CAM. They may have bad reputations but nothing compares to bad reputations that some mid size places can get. Remember, look at the lawyers you want to work with and go and try and work with them. Don't go by big brands and things like that. You're going to join as an A0. You want a place where people will invest you in for the long haul.

If you were to join a competition law team, which ones should you totally steer clear of? Which ones are kinda bearable, like, there’s some toxicity but also a few good things? Which ones are actually great for mentorship, growth, and, you know, not making you regret your life choices?