4th Year Bh Resident here.

Honest answers.

Applies to the BH obviously and to a very large extent the GH. (The SQ for the first years is a whole another experience which I can elaborate on if you want.)

Rooms are slightly smaller than you would like it to be but sufficient for living a hostel life. (Both Double and Single)

I would suggest getting a bunch of accessories for your room and make it your own personal space, did it only in my later years in college and it really does make a difference. Like a sturdy shelf, posters, shelf liners, etc, you get the gist. These items are worth it and get them in your 1st Year itself and keep shifting with them as you get better rooms.

Overall rooms itself are fine, food in the mess is above average, party scenes in the bh are 11/10 (Miss you Chengu iykyk), Room Cleaning is frequent enough just gotta nudge the Dada once.

A sore problem is sports facilities and the absolute absence of it.

And the biggest problem which is really a thorn, is the Bathroom situation. The Bathrooms on basically all floors of the BH are not maintained well and aren't very clean at times. This stems from the fundamental issue of having 50 something boys on each floor using the same limited stalls and sinks. However, if and when you do come here, you'll find ways to adjust.

Finally I'll say that the place has a whole is more than livable rn even amidst the mass construction (NAAC brought about a lot of quality of life improvements) and once that is done, It should be pretty nice and in the best state the Campus has ever been in.

Don't give up NUJS for Hostel concerns.

Happy to address any follow ups.

Been at 3L a while, been also at lala firm before. The problem is in this industry and 3L now (which is now in uncharted territory as there is no other non Lala firm of this size in India) - once you reach scale of 1000 lawyers and 100+ partners, it’s really difficult to maintain Equity model. This is what seems to be happening at 3L now. It’s really crazy how it’s being managed. At least 30 of those 100+ partners feel very very entitled given they are homegrown, there’s founders who have given up equity but not the entitlement and perks and behave like they still run the show, then there’s all the laterals with big books who want supreme status and power hungry. I much prefer one Lala in scam than the multiple lalas with impostor syndrome roaming in 3L. If able to maintain good relation with Lala life is far easier than the circus going on in 3L now and it’s quite unpredictable what happens in future

Ah, the ‘ND Alliance’ argument—a weak attempt to equate two entirely different things. No, we don’t call it the ‘ND Alliance,’ but that’s because the NDA, or National Democratic Alliance, doesn’t attempt to equate itself with the entirety of India. It doesn’t presume to be the country; it merely reflects a democratic aspiration in its name, which is vastly different from appropriating the name of the nation itself.

The issue with naming a coalition ‘INDIA’ is that it goes beyond branding—it’s a deliberate rhetorical ploy. By taking on the country’s name, it suggests that opposition to this coalition is somehow unpatriotic or anti-national. It’s not a simple acronym; it’s a claim to moral and symbolic ownership of the country itself.

If the NDA started calling itself ‘BHARAT’ tomorrow, you’d have every right to criticize it for the same reason. But until that happens, let’s not pretend these situations are remotely comparable.

Ah, how clever—you’ve now reduced the conversation to playground-level wordplay, as though abbreviations themselves are the crux of the matter. No, people don’t call it the ‘BJ Party,’ because abbreviations evolve based on what’s natural and widely understood. The Bharatiya Janata Party is commonly known as BJP, a shorthand that reflects its name without unnecessary theatrics.

But here’s the distinction you seem determined to overlook: BJP does not attempt to pass itself off as synonymous with the nation. It doesn’t call itself ‘BHARAT’ or ‘INDIA’ and then accuse detractors of opposing the country itself. The issue with naming a coalition ‘INDIA’ is not linguistic; it’s symbolic. It’s a deliberate attempt to cloak a partisan group in the garb of the entire nation’s identity, implying moral superiority and silencing dissent.

So no, we don’t call it ‘BJ Party.’ But more importantly, BJP isn’t trying to hijack the country’s name to serve its own narrative. Perhaps focus on substance, rather than grasping at linguistic straws.

Ah, the classic ‘gotcha’ attempt, as though pointing out party names somehow neutralizes the argument. Let’s address this with clarity: the Indian National Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party reference the nation in their titles, but they do not presume to be the nation itself. There’s a vast difference between referencing one’s national identity and declaring oneself synonymous with it.

The problem with naming a coalition ‘INDIA’ is precisely this conflation—it suggests that opposing the coalition is opposing the country. It’s not a name that simply describes a political ideology or vision; it’s a direct attempt to equate the coalition with the nation’s identity.

By this logic, one could rename any group ‘Democracy,’ and then claim critics are anti-democratic. It’s an audacious rhetorical trick, but a transparent one. So, yes, I ‘do realize’ the names of these parties—and I also realize the difference between invoking the nation and attempting to appropriate it.

My dear friend, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Of course, there is no legal provision preventing a coalition from naming itself after the country. The absence of such a law, however, does not make the act any less absurd or worthy of criticism. One might just as well name their party ‘The Universe’ and insist they now represent the cosmos.

What is objectionable is the brazenness of conflating a political alliance with the nation itself. By adopting the name ‘INDIA,’ this coalition has attempted to co-opt the identity of an entire country, as if opposition to their politics equates to opposition to the country. It’s not illegality that’s in question here, but the sheer audacity and arrogance of such a move.

As for your advice on petitioning Parliament, thank you for the suggestion, but I think holding political theatrics up to scrutiny is a service in itself—one that perhaps unsettles you more than it should. If robust debate raises your blood pressure, I might suggest a less taxing pastime than public discourse.

Strawman? Hardly. Your argument attempts to blur the lines between naming conventions and symbolism. Acronyms, like NDA or INDIA, are not inherently problematic. The issue arises when an alliance adopts the very name of the country it seeks to govern, implying equivalence between themselves and the nation. That’s a leap of hubris far beyond simple nomenclature.

As for Nishith Desai—thank you for the creative analogy, but it only underscores my point. Wouldn’t it be absurd for someone to call their group India and then accuse others of ‘distortion’ for questioning such an audacious claim?

Finally, on doing something ‘useful’: I’d argue that questioning presumptuous political behavior is precisely a contribution to the country’s discourse. Perhaps you could do the same instead of dismissing legitimate concerns as ‘narratives.’

Big mistake because in today's day and age, NLS and NALSAR are definitely worse than NLUD. NALSAR's location alone makes it worse and there's literally no good faculty there. And NLS with its domicile and expansion plan is digging its own grave. Then again, if a 300+ suffocating batch size sounds appealing to you, then you do you.

This advice about lit has never made sense to me and so many people I know in Delhi peddle this myth. How exactly does one go from apparently making pittens for 10-15 years living a hand to mouth existence to suddenly being able to demand massive fees? Atleast in corporate, there's a progression towards growth from start to finish. With litigation, it seems just ad-hoc unless you're financially secure and well-connected. What do people even enjoy about litigation? Running around from court to court? Or spending time managing procedural barriers on jurisdiction? I'm really asking. Because the whole arguing a great case before the Sup Ct stage doesn't really come unless one is either very well-connected or already has one foot in the grave.

Hello! A first year student who just finished his first internship at a pretty active/busy district court under a office dealing with criminal matters. Its been a learning experience, got familiar with the procedures and happenings, had a lot of experience learning/dealing with court staff and other miscellaneous tasks. However this internship lacked much drafting work/experience, closest i came to that was when i had to prepare handwriten section 355 bnss applications for absence of accused sometimes.

I think a major reason i couldn't really take up such drafting tasks even by myself might have been because almost all of the happenings of the court here take place in Hindi.

Soon my second semester would be starting and I was wondering what my next internship after that in may-june should be like? I had options between district court again but under a civil matters lawyer (though dont really want to do that again if i were to be very honest), internship at the High Court of Rajasthan, or something else (haven’t really thought alternative options out yet).

I was leaning towards interning at high court as of now so was wondering who should I look to intern under? Should I go for a criminal lawyer, a civil lawyer, a public prosecutor (dont have much idea of what that would entail, hence the title) or should I try for a judicial clerkship (since even that is something that really intrigues me). Would appreciate any and all suggestions.

(Also there are no mandates or compulsions from the side of my college so have freedom in that aspect)

This question clearly shows the level of academic rigour in the country's law schools. In England, people are on tenterhooks till the last day if their training contract offers (conditional upon undergraduate LLB/GDL degree results and SQE results being good) might be withdrawn, while these ones are asking 'how to stay humble'. Get their uni admins to actually introduce an Oxford BA in Jurisprudence-type system, where all the courses are examined after three years, with the students taking all exams for most of their degree at end of final year, and you will automatically make them humble! But that will mean having more Sudhir-type people in the admins space (type of folks who will take the initiative and who, when it comes to massaging peoples' egos, acts like a bull in a china shop if not doing that means not having deadly academic rigour), but unfortunately that is not to be, because most people among university admins in India are those who need their egos massaged!

Interesting to know what NLSIU students and alumni think of this. Even more interesting to know if the Congress government will make it happen before the next state election.

https://m.thewire.in/article/education/kalayana-karnataka-reservation-why-nlsiu-must-embrace-article-371j

The UK wants only the cream of the crop as immigrants: elite doctors, science researchers, investment bankers etc. But these people won’t number more than a few hundred or a few thousand at most. On the other hand, India wants to export lakhs of unemployed computer science graduates from small-time colleges to do low-end data entry or IT customer care work. The UK doesn’t want such people. The brutal truth is that we have a massive problem of overpopulation in India and we can’t give jobs to average-quality graduates, so we need to dump them abroad.

I am a graduate from SLS-N, the placement scene is shitty for sure but I can tell you what worked for me.

I was average in studies but I was aware of this fact so I put all of my energy in figuring out my interest area ASAP. I used to read in my interest area and kept applying for internships. I interned with a few startups, in-house, Tier-1/2 firms.

Just before graduation, I bagged a few interviews from Tier-1 firms, couldn't clear any. Joined an in house, worked there for a year and then left to join a descent firm (Tier 1 in my practice area).
My journey isn't ideal but what I can tell you is that consistency and knowledge will not go in vain.

Don't be so stressed, everything will be aligned provided that you are consistent.

Im working in-house too, making 45k/month (non-nlu grad in T3 city). I quit my law firm within 9 months, I knew about the hours going into it so that wasnt a bother but honestly I couldn't take the toxic working conditions of favoritism, work hogging and marking whole teams in disparaging emails which should otherwise be one on one. Although it does seem like I am missing out on the law aspect of things. How many years of experience do you have btw?

I am planning to write a paper whose topic surrounds the area of investment arbitration and investor state arbitration. Since in my law school I haven't done anything related to it yet (I am aware of the indian arbitration law though), please guide me on which basic sources I should refer in order to get some fundamental grasp of the subject overall, which would help me to then go deep in to the specific research that I need to do for the paper.

Help me suggest some sources like books (not commentaries)/articles/notes that can give me a good picture of Investment Arbitration 101.

Cheers!