We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
So I don't think I see as much concern on these points as you do. But we both have our own views. Let's respect the fact that someone with 7.1 cr of earnings has agreed to be a judge instead of going independent, becoming senior and multiplying his earnings or even earning as much as he did, simply by remaining where he was. Haven't heard something negative on him so by all accounts, he's capable guy and probably, he'll carve a path open for future elevations on bench from law firms.
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.
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.
I'm supposed to admire this generation for that???
Till then, students may go for work experience
Anybody has an idea as to how to get through to internships at Poovayya? Have applied multiple times, even with consistent follow ups, never received a reply. Do they only take referrals? Or is there any other way to contact them?
Thank you.
My question is WHY that is the case. Moots don’t matter much for placements and I don’t think they carry much weight for LLM admits, unless you win Jessup or something. Also, many other committees also have power and influence. Look at Legal Aid. They host judges for conferences and they too get attendance exemptions and become close to the VC. But they don’t have any glamour and are not considered prestigious! Then look at Sports. They organise fests which are the talk of the town. But MCS reps are still higher in the hierarchy. Only Recruitment has equal glam and prestige. Why??? Why do we place this committee on a pedestal?
Going through something similar
But in general the ROI of a foreign degree kicks in much later in law, as compared to other graduate degrees such as an MS in engineering or an MBA etc.
- Go for an LLM later in life and let work ex cover up for poor grades. The other day I met someone who did an MBA abroad at the age of 45. Unlike in India, you won't feel ageism if you study abroad at a late age.
- Go for a short summer school or fellowship for practitioners. You will find quite a few such opportunities.
But I really like your honesty, because you identify the key reason why most LI readers aggressively troll people who go for LLBs or LLMs abroad --- sheer jealousy.
Look at the typical comments here. They say that Cyril Shroff doesn't care about foreign degrees and that even an LLB from GLC has a better chance of becoming a partner. They also say that those going for higher studies are rich and spoilt. And if one receives a scholarship like Rhodes, they mock them by saying that they must have written a woke SOP about fighting for human rights.
Now, let's feed the trolls and at these so-called criticisms properly:
- Yes, GLC has produced more partners and Senior Advocates than all foreign universities combined. But even Kendriya Vidyalaya has produced more IAS officers than Campion or Woodstock school. Does this mean one should decline an opportunity to attend Campion or Woodstock? Foreign universities offer you far superior faculty and infrastructure. In fact, even NLU toppers teach abroad and not in India. Also, these universities offer an excellent social environment where you meet people from all over the world and live in an advanced country.
- As for the woke SOP argument -- so what? You are trying to maximise your chances of obtaining something, so you make the best strategy possible. When you practice law, don't you do exactly that? What's wrong in saying that you were President of the Greta Thunberg Society in college and organised a climate change seminar??? Even if you actually burn a lot of carbon by wasting paper or driving diesel cars? You are applying for an LLM and not to be a priest at the Vatican!
Also how did you make for the low grades while applying for LLM
Balancing act
5 judgement hai mere pass ispe
NKO is replaceable, so, is AM.
As long as they have the power, there is already next in line wanting and desperate to take their position and do better than them.
World doesn't work like that.
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!!
1. No results to show: I worked for about 3.5 years on a Research Project. There was no final report or anything of that sort. The project is headed nowhere now, and all the work we did was for nothing.
2. No papers: If you're an upper caste male, not poor and not having health issues, there is no reason you shouldn't have at least 1 paper/year. I have only 2 papers after I finished Masters, in almost 6 years.
3. No callbacks: I have applied to most good tier 4 colleges, colleges that are worse than tier 3 NLUs. No callback from any of them. I don't even apply to NLUs because I know there's no point without a PhD.
4. A worthless job: The position I'm currently in- noone considers that to be a teaching position. I'm not getting any teaching experience here. There is hardly any value addition to the skills as well.
5. PhD going haywire: Sometimes I feel I shouldn't have opted for a PhD from a good NLU. Galgotias or Amity will ensure you get a PhD, and maybe a job after that. The NLUs are very sub optimal in all sense, except that we may get better supervisor.
Only in exceptional cases do they offer a callback.
But do try for T 2/T3