You raise a valid point—there have indeed been instances where the behavior of judges has raised serious concerns. It’s a reality we cannot and should not ignore. But let’s unpack what this actually means for the discussion at hand.

If anything, the behavior of certain judges across various high courts only underscores the need for higher standards, not lower ones. The fact that trust in the judiciary has been challenged isn’t an argument for bypassing rigorous preparation; it’s an argument for reinforcing it. If we’re concerned about the wisdom and judgment of those on the bench, the solution is not to cut corners or relax the demands we place on our judges. On the contrary, it’s to ensure that those we appoint are more thoroughly vetted, more deeply experienced, and better prepared than ever before.

Let’s be clear: the judiciary, like any institution, will always have its failings. But those failings should compel us to strive for better—not to throw up our hands and abandon the very processes that are designed to cultivate the wisdom and integrity we seek. If judges are falling short of the standards we expect, it’s because those standards have been allowed to slip, not because they’ve been enforced too strictly.

So yes, the trust issues you mention are real, and they’re deeply concerning. But they don’t negate the importance of proper judicial preparation—they reinforce it. The more we demand of those who aspire to the bench, the more we can ensure that the judiciary earns and maintains the public’s trust.

In the end, we’re left with a choice: do we respond to these challenges by lowering our expectations, or do we redouble our efforts to uphold the principles that should guide our judiciary? I would argue that the latter is not only the right course, but the only course that offers any hope of restoring the integrity and trust that have been, as you rightly point out, so sorely tested.

Ah, “Ivory Tower”—how fitting. From such a lofty perch, it’s easy to dismiss practical concerns with a wave of the hand, especially when they’re couched in satire. But let’s not confuse a clever turn of phrase with a substantive argument.

Your mock dialogue is amusing, I’ll grant you that. But it also reveals a deeper problem—one that goes beyond the logistical challenges you so wittily outline. The real issue is this: the judiciary isn’t a game where we appoint judges based on convenience or expediency. It’s a cornerstone of our society, and it demands more than just passing familiarity with the law. It demands experience, gravitas, and a deep understanding that only comes from time spent in the trenches, not in the boardrooms of law firms.

You’ve aptly named yourself “Ivory Tower,” because the view from up there seems to miss the ground-level reality that our judges need to be more than just well-credentialed—they need to be battle-tested. The scenario you paint, where a collegium makes empty promises and leaves candidates in professional limbo, isn’t a critique of the need for experience; it’s a critique of a system that’s failing to properly prepare its judges. And that’s precisely the point. The solution isn’t to laugh off the idea of preparation; it’s to fix the system so that the best candidates can gain the experience they need without sacrificing their careers on a vague promise.

So while your satire might play well in the clouds of your “Ivory Tower,” down here in the real world, we have to deal with the consequences of appointing judges who aren’t ready for the responsibility. If we’re serious about maintaining the integrity of our judiciary, then we can’t afford to ignore the importance of experience—no matter how impractical it might seem from your lofty vantage point.

What's your opinion on Env/Energy/Climate Change LLMs and are they useful going forward given the changing ESG space, Sustainable Development and environmental regulations? Can I make a mark in the Indian legal sphere as an environmental lawyer if I'm passionate enough? I'd love to eventually understand the subject deeply enough to teach it as well

Kuch bhi dude, debt related research is very interesting. Also to answer you question, even tho internship is online it depends on your team and how proactive they are for recruitment. It also depends on how proactive you are, but it makes things much easier if you go there offline. I agree that your work yo a great extent will be clerical and preparing notes or summarising documents. Research will be related to FEMA mostly. You could look at FEMA ODI, NDI rules for starters. If you have more time you could see the allied RBI Master Directions and Circulars. Best of luck, bnf can be fun if you understand the concepts. Alsoo do make sure you know concepts of Pledge, Mortgage, Hypothecation, Guarantee, Indemnity, Bailment I'm sure you do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no T2/T3 firm is looking to hire a person who's graduated from a private university — or a person who's taken two drop years. So, as a person who's done both, your chances of breaking into corporate law with no background and references are slim to none. My advice? Use contacts, work with whatever boutique/chambers you can, and hope to jump thereon.

This will be the real test of character of people who think they are entitled to be future managing partners of this firm.

Surely AM must have had her reasons to take this big step but whoever knows her in competition law space and otherwise will say she has been one of the greatest assets to their practice. Undoubtedly she gave her best with full sincerity and took SAM’s competition practice forward by leaps and bounds specially in merger control. She has been a great flag bearer for women and a great mentor and colleague.

She got the best platform and gave her heart and soul for 10 years. Nobody can touch her on her sheet hard work, professionalism and ethics.

If she has chosen to move on, respect it with grace and take it on the chin that something must have gone horribly wrong. Try to fix the issues raised by her so that nobody else leaves for these reasons rather than misbehaving.

For the sake of her contribution itself to the practice, she deserves to be sent with utmost dignity and respect. If the future managing partners will misbehave with her it will hurt them and perception about their leadership and maturity much more than they can ever imagine.

Everyone is watching..Hope sense prevails!!

Let’s cut to the chase: SAM’s recent partner walkouts? Totally predictable. As long as the Shroffs/Chopras keep clinging to their stakes like it’s the last piece of cake at a party, SAM can only play dress-up as a meritocratic/efficient firm. The reality? It’s a family-owned drama factory masquerading as a professional law firm.

And don’t even get me started on the competition team—talk about a traffic jam at the top. With three Shroffs hogging the spotlight (and the profits), ▮▮▮ The team’s so saturated that talented partners are suffocating. No wonder they’ve lost the two competition partners recently.▮▮▮

SAM needs to wake up and smell the coffee, or they will be left with nothing but a bunch of empty offices and an even emptier reputation.

Heya!!! I've been in your situation before. I also did not take part in our internal uni moot in my first year because I chickened out at the last minute and thought there was no point in making a joke out of myself. I completely regret not trying out mooting in my first year, not because it caused me a disadvantage in the future (which it did of course) but because I didn't deal with my lack of self-confidence issues back then. Subsequently, in my second year, I was feeling very low as my peers were faring much better than me and I only got to take part in one moot with teammates who were not really enthusiastic about it. For a long time, I was extremely anxious about my lack of mooting achievements and no matter what I did, I somehow could not manage to do well in it - our college is also not very supportive in terms of providing attendance and funding, so that, of course, did not make things any better. My fellow classmates had already found their moot partners and I could not possibly ask them to moot with me. Despite this, third year was a complete game changer, I somehow managed to team up well, won a couple of national moots and an international moot. I'm not currently anxious about mooting at all, but I am very concerned about my placements. But just want to say that we are all on the same page or have been at some point. You might think your peers are faring much better than you when in reality, they also have their own issues to deal with. I am sure you know how to do well in moots, but you might not be able to execute it that well - this could be because of multiple external factors that may not really be under your control. Just know that mooting is quite arbitrary and that one shouldn't do moots merely to get a material outcome as such because it can truly be very disappointing when things don't pan out the way we want them to.

My only advice is that we all need to change the way we perceive mooting - it shouldn't be all about the outcomes. Yes, results matter but the kind of subject matter knowledge you get when you spend months diligently researching on it is just something else altogether. While I was working on the international moot I mentioned, I initially opted for it merely for the CV value it offered. But when I truly started working on it, I happened to really enjoy the process. The last 6 or so months working on it were truly a blessing - despite the lack of attendance, low CGPA, lack of internships etc.

Just don't worry - although not doing moots in the first year can cause some disadvantages, that is not something that cannot be changed. Make sure you put in your very best and work with people who are diligent and not just smart. Focus on doing moots where you will enjoy the subject matter and learn to enjoy the process. Do not be too harsh on yourself. I don't know who you are but I am rooting for you. I hope it all works well:)))

Did myfirst moot round in 2nd year. Paid close attention during the mooting workshop and made notes. Watched seniors who were Good mooters while they were practising and arguing. Did well and got allocated a domestic T1 moot that year. Semi finalist. Made friends and had a lot of fun. It's not impossible at all.

Nope. This is just a thing whereby they are cheapening their brand. Some random practitioner whom nobody has ever heard of and who attended some T3 NLU or TLC will jump at it, might get selected (taking two a priori assumptions to be true: that good academics/professionals wouldn't like the arrangement of fitting in, and that this would lead to lack of interest, leading to few applications) and will get to say that they "taught at NLSIU" on their CV. As if! Or, in the alternative, as you said, good academics/professionals won't like it (especially the fitting-in arrangement) and this thing will meet an early (and sticky) end.

Hey! 5th Year Student here.

I'll be joining IndusLaw for an internship in September. From what I could see from my email's CC, I've been allocated to Saurav Kumar's Team (Transactions), based primarily in IndusLaw's office in Gurgaon.

I want to know these things primarily:

1. How's the team's work culture?

2. How do I maximize the amount of work that I can get?

3. How possible is a PPO Offer at the current time in that team? And how do I push for it? Because I know my work ethics are very very strong. I am a very fast learner, and I'm very confident about the quality of the work that I can assist with. Thus, I think through my work, I can get positive feedback. But apart from that, what other factors do I need to push to get a chance at a PPO interview?

I'll be incredibly grateful for some helpful advice.

Thank you so much!

I’m afraid tier 2 NLUs will doomed to oblivion if NLU nationalisation doesn’t happen. You are competing with tier 1 NLUs whose batch sizes keep getting bigger and private law schools with 1000 times more funding and resources at their disposal. How can you compete with them unless the central government supports you like they support IIM and IIT?

Jayant Mehta is also extremely picky about his juniors — if you're not from NLS, you're already not a preference. Anywhere below GNLU and you're not even considered seriously.

That said, there's no doubt that his brilliance and work ethic has made the careers of multiple of his juniors, some of whom are now AORs and well-established in their own right.

Having access to more info doesn't have anything to do with smartness. It's how you process info and apply the lessons learnt from it that matters. The poll doesn't make any sense because it is entirely about making generalisations and no good teacher should do that. There have been good students in every generation and those who are lazy, disinterested in learning and reek of entitlement.

No cause NLS generally has the brightest students and also has the strictest academic standard.

Generally the top 15 get foreign TCs or LLMs with scholarships

The next approx 40-45 get T1 Day0

The next approx 50 get T2/Boutique DAY0

Almost everybody gets either an in-house role or a T3 Day0

JNU in international law,

IIT Kharagpur (but it requires 2 year LLB) ,

DU, BHU, AMU (decent but depends on supervisor)

Among private ones, JGLS is good for now. BML Munjal offers a good stipend as well, but idk how good it is.

Last resort universities- State Universities because they often hire their PhD graduates.

Advantages of a private uni is that you can complete your PhD easily. Ultimately you'll have 30 more points on API compared to the idiots like me pursuing it from NLS