I think the page I cited above states clearly that what is essential is an LLM degree in order to apply. The guidelines are silent on specialisation. So, yes, one can apply irrespective of their specialisation in LLM. At the same time, the question and relevance of your specialisation may come up during the interview.

Hi, a student from GLC here. All of this is unfortunately true. The ground reality is starkly different from the rosy picture painted by the College. All the College and does for students since AV’a arrival is introducing “5 certificate courses” so that “when students graduate from the government law college, they leave with 7 (or whatever her arbitrary number is) degrees”.

The whole NAAC thing was a sham, it was all a farce, the “gymkhana” of the College is covered in bird poop. The library is poorly stocked, the teaching is sub-par, and we definitely should not discuss the infrastructural issues with GLC.

Even after this online anonymous outrage by students, which is hardly a respite, we know for a fact that a protest or any sort of actual outrage is not possible in an institution like ours because the chance of you making enemies from the administration is invariably higher than even the slightest chance of a decent and honest dialogue between the College and its students.

In short, the novelty, legacy,

Sorry to offend anyone here, but the influence of local M politics (you can use your head and figure out what the M stands for, and its not Muslim) has finally pierced the prestige of GLC. From several years, we have seen notable legal luminaries stop their visits to the College and the intersection of M state politics with the educational system here is clear. For God knows what reason, the entirety of Mumbai University has suffered since the past 2 decades. While DU retains its status as a frontrunner despite many political issues and clashes, MU has suffered. The downfall of GLC is the final straw. Hell, I've heard from associates that even DU has started hammering students for low attendance now. Sad state of affairs for historically significant colleges like these. GLC needs to sack their administration ASAP. Just sacking the principal and keeping the position vacant would do good to GLC, as student bodies are self-sufficient and seem to work independently anyways. At least a vacant principal's seat will not jeopardize the already-crumbling repute even more.

It is impossible to suggest that the management is in anyway interested in the affairs of the college. This college couldn't even call an electrician to fix the fans and lights, but acts with such haste to set up some gym equipment and do basic renovations to impress the NAAC team.

The student committees recieve less money than promised and are always told about how the college is low on cash.

They have now implemented a shoddy digital attendance system that doesn't even work properly. Moreover, previously, teachers would forge attendance. Now, teachers tell students they have no time for a lecture so give Attendance and leave.

There are very few decent classes to conduct lectures in. There is either construction work going on in classrooms, or the windows are all boarded up, or are so dirty that even the teachers request us to search for a different class.

And let's not forget the professors themselves. There are very few professors who are actually competent. Most are quite incompetent and do not know how to teach. There are some who are disinterested in teaching and prefer to talk about their ideological/political beliefs, some beliefs that reading the textbook of their own subject disproves, and they give good marks to only those who they perceive to believe in their beliefs.

Then there are those who act so vindictively towards students as if they have a personal vendetta against us. And then there are professors who will give you poor marks in viva/presentation for no reason, I've had a semester where this specific professor have most students between 14-18 and only a few students got about 20.

I even had a professor who, during vivas, required to quote the definitions from the acts that they are written in. One of my friends has wanted to work in arbitration and has interned in that direction since the very first year. After asking a few questions on arbitration, the professor declared that since he didn't quote the definitions from the acts, he will give him no marks for viva and proceeded to grade him only on his assignment.

Why would any student want to join such an institution. And from what I've heard, and opposition to how things are going seems to result in vindictive action from the administration. Even senior professor Ratho wasn't immune to this(I expect you guys already know about that case).

GLC in my opinion is done. If anyone you know wishes to join the institution, recommend that they don't. For those who are students in GLC, keep your head down and just graduate unless you are willing to risk being targetted by professors and the administration

Accept your responsibility. Apologise to those whom you inconvenienced. Identify where and why you messed up. Improve so that you do not repeat the same error again. Ensure your reliability by being consistent from hereon.

Every professional has a bad day. But there is a reason they are called professional. Sincerity of purpose and a willingness to introspect will always hold you in good stead among your peers.

You can do it. All the best.

“What is the moral? Who rides may read.

When the night is thick and the tracks are blind,

A friend at a pinch is a friend indeed;

But a fool to wait for the laggard behind

Down to Gehenna, or up to the Throne,

He travels the fastest who travels alone.

. . .

“Wherefore the more ye be holpen and stayed,

Stayed by a friend in the hour of toil,

Sing the heretical song I have made–

His be the labour, and yours be the spoil.

Win by his aid, and the aid disown–

He travels the fastest who travels alone.”

—Rudyard Kipling (from ‘The Winners’)

4th year student, feeling lost and lonely, about to step into Corp Law in a new city, have little to no friends even in hometown, not the best relationship with family, no partners, does it get better? Or at least, do new avenues open up? My head hurts. No negative comments, I already have a dozen better of them thrown at me daily.

Thanks for the reply. What you say is not rooted in reality and is itself a product of a certain kind of discourse that justifies its consensus by pretending that disagreements always lead to better and inclusive decisions. That is a noble mirage. You are like the president in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove who cannot accept the fact that the discourse in which he participates and which establishes his sovereign power to nuke enemies can be so easily discarded by others.

Your own unspecified example of the same ideology succeeding in one context while failing in another only further proves my point. Details matter. Process matters. Rhetoric is only an indication of intent and has little to no bearing upon the consequences that a policy promulgated in its name produces.

People can and do disagree in good faith. I never said otherwise. But there is a point beyond which disagreements cease to be useful in widening a conversation and end up limiting action itself. Not for nothing did CIA come up with a handbook on how to use civil methods to effectively obstruct any discussion.

Sometimes disagreements do lead to better decisions and sometimes they don’t. But that has little to do with the fact of disagreement itself. It has more to do with the implicit acknowledgement among the decision-makers that what matters is how something gets done and not whether it satisfies the vague purity of an idea. This is what enables compromise and collaboration, for better or worse. Mathematics is neither socialist nor capitalist. And you do not need an ideology to end famine or reduce poverty. Ideas are a fundamental part of how humans cogitate and rationalize. They are necessary and they are things of wonder. But ideas are not enough.

No. Youre wrong. Majority of reasonable disagreements are not always over details, planning, or execution. The slight of hand youre trying to pull is equating the value of teaching mathematics in primary schools with whether or not a welfare state truly works to reduce poverty. One of those things is not like the other and all the evidence is not in yet. Far left communist governments in many instances did not alleviate poverty and in many instances they did. Capitalism did work to elevate people suffering from extreme poverty but it certainly doesnt lead to an equal outome society and neither does it lead to a society where there are equal opportunities.

I'm a leftist, but im not conceited enough to think that anyone who disagrees with me about socialist policies is being unreasonable. Theyre being manifestly reasonable. I just think theyre wrong even when theyre being rational and reasonable. Just like its possible for me to be wrong even when I'm being rational or reasonable.

I dont know about you- but I have found that its less than useless to approach disagreements with the idea that anyone who doesnt at the end of the argument agree with me is only doing so because theyre silly or petty or spiteful. People can disagree with me. No one has a claim to the complete truth. In disagreeing with each other we might actually find some common ground that actually would be the best path forward.

urgency isn't the same as round-the-clock availability at ALL times. Urgent situations arise, yes, but they aren't as frequent as you are making of them.

When litigating, one has the privilege to act upon their will. You needn't virtue signal someone to make them understand how the profession works. They do them, and they are good enough to look after them, which is part of the reason why they are litigating in the first place. But older people like you who are as acquainted with exploiting free labour can't gulp the fact that people can be doing well in life while not dragging their ass at all times like you did. It isn't advice that you offer, it's jealousy that you inflict.

beloved old hag ji, before expressing your concern to that beta about their inability to punctuate appropriately, do check out the Linkedin post and comment on the punctuating ability of the senior partner. I am sure kids in their 5th grade have a better grasp over English and are more aware of incorrect punctuations.

Leave our generation alone, we are sufficient to fend for ourselves. Its only your insecuirty of losing your hold over underpaid labour that triggers you and forces you to argue with us. Please don't waste your time doing it on an anonymous platform, i am sure your client must be getting disappointed since you aren't picking up their call and playing a keyboard warrior.

Dear uncle- I will do so by pushing back on false deadlines & by not delegating things to my juniors at the last minute. ALSO, if my generation collectively pushes back on false/unreasonable deadlines (which they will. Believe me they will coz all of us collectively believe in WLB)- then no client will have their unreasonable expectations met. Infact, clients will also be one of us- so no unreasonable expectations at all. Think about it- with you guys, shouting and abusive/toxic culture was the norm. Things have substantially changed now. Similarly WLB will also come one day.

Playing devil's advocate here; it is evident the OP/commentators here haven't seen what the post actually says. This is solely for those engaging in LITIGATION. It's evident that people here are mostly corp lawyers.....I'm a junior lawyer and in places like Delhi, seniors often get briefed late until night and you're expected to be available 24/7. As this senior partner says, there are many, many lawyers in a country; if you don't wake up at 3AM, someone else is willing to. Not supporting this practice, but in crowded nations like India and China, this is unfortunately how it is.

Dear Beta - do explain to us old hags how you will do so, when many of you and your ilk are unable to draft a letter competently and punctuate properly, leave alone handle clients and strategise for matters. Pipe dreams and fantasises are all fine and dandy beta but you are better off focusing on your matters and upgrading yourself. All the best.

3-4 years? Try 15-20 years AT LEAST before you become a partner who MAY have interactions with 'relevant' and powerful people. Most corp partners liaise with GC of companies, so not exactly very 'powerful'. Networking is independent of this; making such connections in a country like India will more often than not require you to exploit family connections. If you really want to have 'connections' and 'setting' in the future, I'd rather recommend litigation. PS- If this is why you are getting into corp law or litigation, I can assure you that you'll burn out within a couple of years.

I have seen many seniors of mine get into corporate law because they feel that they will meet big-shots and gain their support, which is crucial for them to succeed in the future. Their plan is that they work at a corporate firm for 3-4 years and build a good connect with some executives, managers and businessmen, so they can build their own firm or business with their connects as clients. Does it really work out that way? Or is it no good?

UGC guidelines on how eligibility, categories, remuneration, tenure, etc. for PoP can be accessed at << https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/3659158_Guildeline-for-engaing-Professor-of-Practice-in-Universities-and-Colleges.pdf >>. There is also a portal at << https://pop.ugc.ac.in/Home/Advertisement >> but the advertisement notices linked there are inaccessible.

Absolutely. Fundamental rights are paramount. You said 'bastard' didn't you? Now if someone who finds that offensive (there are plenty who do) complained and you had to do the rounds of police stations and courts which just went about lecturing you on morals and standards that were arbitrary and did not reflect actual societal reality you would be oppressed. Sadly the wisdom of the judiciary reflects the intellect of those in power.

The SC which was a champion and preserver of fundamental rights has now turned destroyer.

Very, very weird.

1. Are people not allowed to comment upon matters pending in court? No, they are. There is no law restricting it. So, what's the issue if Samay Raina comments on it?

2. Is it unlawful for a person to travel abroad and comment? No, the rights of an Indian citizen under Article 19(1)(a) are not limited by territory.

3. But, let's probe further: Can the court direct that someone not exercise their right to freedom of speech & expression? No. Only the Parliament can, by virtue of a law - which would fall the exceptions of Article 19(2). But in absence of any law, the court cannot prevent an Indian citizen from saying whatever they want (whether obscene or not). This too has been clarified by the SC numerous times.

4. Did Samay say anything wrong, obscene or contemptuous in Canada? Based on the news report, it does not seem so. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that Samay's show in Canada was disrespectful to the Supreme Court. The institution is Supreme enough that it cannot be put into disrepute by any tom-dick-and-harry, let alone a wannabe chess player/lousy comedian. Not unless the court itself takes offense at it and actually turns the public's eyeballs onto those comments.

In these circumstances, to say that a comedian is being "oversmart", in my very humble & respectful opinion, is just being "oversensitive", and ought to have been avoided. Let matters be decided by the law; there is no need for a future CJI to flex muscles (though, thankfully, these were only verbal remarks and no muscles were actually flexed by way of orders - but then there's the question of why should any oral observations of this nature be made when neither the said party is before the court nor is there any legal issue regarding it).

Yours,

truly &

Not intending any disrespect to the institution, the judges, or the process of the law,

Someone who is now going back to preparing for Court No. 3 for this Friday.

"Bastards"? Nobody wishes to insult any of the 'Honorable' Judges of any Court, unless without specific cause. It is evident the archaic form of 'respect' provided to the Courts of India have got to the heads of your lordships. Look at how the Executive and Legislature remain at everyone's crosshairs 24/7. Why should the Judiciary, which directly impacts the lives of every citizen and even non-citizen in the nation, not be exempt. Unlike our Judges, at least we can choose our politicians and then criticize them as well!

Disagree with your last point. The process of how someone is hired matters because the process is supposed to be a professional evaluation of the candidate. The whole point of providing discretion to the competent authority is not to enable them to do as their will it but to use it with care and without deviating from existing standards without first providing a cogent reason. Besides, an unfair process is more likely to select an inefficient employee. The power of discretion is a function of trust and responsibility that is placed in an office.

Not casting any aspersions on the university and its governance here, but it is worth stating that, in general, the law/rule can permit anything. But that is not the same as due process. Questions of whether due diligence, fair representation, and competition are ensured in a particular process, say that of recruitment or admission, cannot be wished away by citing rules. A rule permits you to undertake an action but it is not an excuse for incompetence or discretion applied arbitrarily.

For debt investments/transaction - our job as corp lawyers is to 1) draft the documents which eventually lead to the transactions 2) advise whether the structure/aspects of the transaction are legal or not 3) negotiate with the opposing party on certain terms of the contracts and 4) sometimes do legal due diligence

Investment bankers structure the whole transaction. They’ll advise the clients what’s the best mode of investment based on their financial analysis. IBs also help clients find the counterparties and financially advise them throughout the transaction.

From what I know, the pay is quite similar at equivalent levels and experience, however, how much do the activities & roles differ? M&A lawyers often help in business modelling, due diligence, checking financials (then valuation) and also regulatory & compliance matters, which is exactly what M&A bankers do, excluding the legal part (regulatory & compliance). Capital/Equity-Debt Market lawyers advise and assist in raising capital through IPOs and/or raising capital through loans and/or bond issuances, which is again, exactly what bankers do. What is the real difference? if any.

Yes, we all must work hard even 80 hour is less, i suggest 160 hours per week to 4 trillion dollar economy to make our masters or privileged people in India (rich businessmen/owners/) even more richer. Even Chinese labor laws and justice system would be embarrassed in front of Indian labour laws how can India as country cannot develop into a developed economy.