Quite honestly — good for AM. She deserved recognition beyond the Shroffs' behind-the-scenes stalwart, and this is well due. She may have been a tough boss at times, but she's also absolutely brilliant and pretty reasonable. Better than a lot of other names in the industry. Best wishes to her and congratulations!

SAM lost AM to Trilegal.

AM is a match for Nisha at least in Merger Control. Big name in competition field.

SAM Competition Team is led by NC. AM would have never been made practice head, no matter how much she'd have tried.

Now, she'll become national head of Trilegal.

It’s challenging, but we do have some advantages.

Firstly, the NLS brand is well-known as the best in India, so just sending an email from our official nls.ac.in IDs gives us a lot of gravitas, making it easier to secure internships, at least in corporate and litigation.

Secondly, PPOs aren’t as crucial for us, as NLS attracts a lot of firms on Day 0.

Recording of call with customer care below. But the bigger question is this: apparently any state police can complain to Airtel/Jio and get a number blocked?? Under what law is this??

https://x.com/abhijitmajumder/status/1829529046126096864

There is sometimes a “Remedies in Commercial Law” elective offered at NLS. I took that one. Incredible. Beautiful blend of theory and practice and actual application. Same prof taught Contracts core as well for one section in NLS last year. Heard great things about that course too. Some of these courses, if done well, can really kindle a love for the law…

Wow! I always thought he was an NLS / NLU grad. Does he come from an ordinary background or from privilege? I ask because it's well known that AMS never gave the same weight/ preference to non-NLU grads. Of course, litigation could've been an exception. Barriers to entry perhaps may have been higher in more technical practice areas..

Well, it’s a good question, and it really cuts to the heart of what it means to take on the role of a judge—a role that’s fundamentally about responsibility, not just knowledge. You see, there’s a crucial distinction between knowing the law in theory and living it out in the crucible of real-world practice. When you serve as counsel, particularly as senior counsel, you’re immersed in the practical realities of the courtroom. You’re on the front lines, so to speak, engaging directly with the complexities of human conflict as it plays out under the law.

Now, why does that matter? Because the courtroom isn’t just a place where abstract legal principles are debated; it’s where those principles are tested, where they collide with the messy, unpredictable realities of life. When someone has that experience—when they’ve been through the rigors of counsel work—they gain a kind of wisdom that simply can’t be acquired in any other way. They learn to see the law not just as a set of rules, but as a living, breathing organism that interacts with human nature in all its forms.

And let’s be clear: the transition from counsel to judge is not a trivial one. A judge isn’t there to argue a case; they’re there to adjudicate it. That requires a deep understanding of what it means to be an advocate, because only then can they truly be impartial. If you skip that step, you risk placing someone on the bench who might still think like an advocate—someone who hasn’t fully internalized the impartiality that is so crucial to the role of a judge.

But beyond that, there’s also the matter of public trust. The judiciary must be seen as fair and impartial, and that perception is built on the integrity and experience of those who serve as judges. When a judge has spent time as counsel, the public can have greater confidence that they’ve earned their place, that they’ve been tested in the real world, and that they’re truly ready to take on the immense responsibility of judging others.

So, the difference, in essence, is between a judge who is merely knowledgeable and one who is wise—between someone who knows the law and someone who understands it, deeply, in the context of human experience. And that, I would argue, is no small difference at all.

I appreciate the question, and it’s one worth addressing. My concerns arise from a deep-seated belief in the importance of experience, tradition, and the proper functioning of our judiciary.

Firstly, there is the matter of courtroom experience. Judges are not mere legal scholars—they are the arbiters of justice, tasked with interpreting and applying the law in real-world scenarios. The courtroom is a place where theory meets practice, where the abstract becomes tangible. It’s here that one truly grasps the complexities and subtleties of the law. When we appoint individuals directly from law firms to the bench, we risk placing them in a position of immense responsibility without ensuring they have the practical experience necessary to wield it effectively.

Then there is the issue of transitioning from advocacy to adjudication. A judge is not an advocate for a particular client or cause but a neutral arbiter who must weigh all sides impartially. This is not a mindset one simply adopts overnight; it requires time, reflection, and a shift in perspective—something that a period as senior counsel can facilitate. Without this, we risk placing individuals on the bench who are still, in a sense, advocates in their hearts, which is not what the role demands.

And let us not overlook the matter of public perception. The judiciary must not only be impartial but be seen to be impartial. When we pluck individuals directly from the corridors of corporate law and place them on the bench, the public might reasonably question whether they can truly leave their past affiliations behind. A stint as senior counsel serves as a necessary buffer, helping to reassure both the individual and the public of their impartiality.

Finally, there is the matter of tradition. There is a reason why the pathway to the bench has, for so long, passed through the ranks of advocacy and senior counsel practice. It is a time-tested route that has consistently produced judges who are not only knowledgeable but also deeply connected to the realities of the law as it is lived and breathed in the courts. To bypass this process is to risk undermining the very foundations of our judiciary, something that should not be done lightly.

In essence, my concern is that this new trend might lead to a judiciary that is less prepared, less impartial, and ultimately less respected. And that, I believe, would be a loss for us all.

Seen in my T2 law school unless you get a star performance in a well known moot, it just ends up as a line on your CV, which it happens with most of people.

The odds may be in your favour and it may be a good experience once, but I suggest focus on GPA, quality internships and networking. That is what gets most people T1 jobs.

All of the best, hope you get whatever you want :)

unless youre doing the top 5 international moots, maybe winning top 3 indian moots- theres really no significant career advantage. Moot if you like the activity and find it interesting. But job youll get because of grades and internships. If you dont moot- be prepared to point to another activity that you might have been doing instead- that could be interning year round, that could be writing articles- whatever, but you have to be doing something more than bare minimum attending classes and getting passing grades.

Going by pure success rate and without any politics:

Shyam Divan

Mukul Rohatgi

Gopal Shankarnarayan

These guys get good orders from virtually any bench in Court.

Sid Dave also in criminal matters.

If you add politics and prominence,

AM Singhvi

Kapil Sibal

See the Judgement of AP High Court in case of Govt. of AP Vs. N. Rami Reddy and ors reported in AIR 2001 AP 226 and Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Indira Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 1590. There is distinction between Suspension and Stay of Judgement according to Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court Judgement cited supra. Suspension of Judgement revived the position existing before the judgement which is not correct to say when Judgement is only stayed. Refer para 11 to 14 of Judgement of Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court cited supra.