I have been with ELP since the day I graduated and a few years ago, I was made an equity partner. When the ELP brand is sold to Dhruva, all equity partners should get to share the consideration. Do I expect to receive my share of that Consideration? No. I am pretty sure a large part of the Consideration will be paid to SAN and Sword as a “Consultancy Fee”. Only a very small percentage of the Consideration will be paid to the Partnership and I MAY receive a few crumbs out of that. Am I bugged? Can I do anything about this? No.

I console myself my saying “Chor ka dhan chandal khaye, paapi munh dekhta rah jaye!”

Just venting.

And the part where post Townhall he ran to every partner with his phone to show how someone sent him a forward of bar and bench posting something about his Townhall. “Look look, I am famous”.

No one cares about the dead firm. SAN needs to step down and give the reigns to someone more competent.

A friend of mine who reports to a former ELP Partner tells me that Mr. Rohan Shah’s Chamber was called Economic Laws Practice since 1999. After RSM persuaded Mr. Rohan Shah to convert it into a full-service partnership firm, he brought on board Nankani, Nathani and Talwar. Nathani and Talwar were given equity for their capital contributions and supported in building up Trade and Infra practices. Until 2006 or 2007, ELP was known as RSM’s unofficial law firm. RSM created ELP the law firm using Mr. R Shah.

Latest: Organiser (RSS publication) and OpIndia have named the prof, ABVP is holding protests on campus. He’s a professor and simultaneously a Congress MP (don’t know how that’s even allowed).

The RW ecosystem is pointing fingers at the Left ecosystem for its silence.

▮▮▮ ▮▮▮ redux?

work culture at wadia is not good. some teams are great, for eg, Bhakti Mehta (from what I've heard) but in general wadia tends to lean towards the toxic side - toxic, not in a way that you are abused, but toxic in a way that there are so many deliverables and long working hours. baaki sab is the same at any firm you go to. ▮▮▮ people cry on a daily basis in that team. You won't get to learn because real estate at a tier 1 is DD and DD and some more DD. Go to Wadia go to DSK. DSK has lower-end pay but the people are really good (have myself interned) - people are generally very sweet AND you get to learn. They have good matters imo.

You could also target solicitor firms or boutique real estate firms. Slog for 2 years and any tier 1 will pick you because the knowledge you build base up can not be compared to starting real estate from a tier 1 firm. All the best!

In any society that aspires towards civility, it is imperative to have certain norms that its members consider absolute and immune from reaction; open to critique, yes, but also sacred enough to be appreciated as just and necessary.

It is my understanding that whatever aspirations most of us may have from our Republic, diverse as they may well be, can be made possible only by our sense of regard for the paramount status of the individual life. No claim to economic development or social justice can, or should, be allowed to diminish the value of the individual from being an autonomous self to a mere sub-set of a group. Why do I make this non-negotiable? Because there is a very good probability that whatever claims are usually made when we are told to sacrifice our individuality on the altar of either development or justice, that more often than not, they turn out not to be true. But in the process of their execution and our acquiescence to them, we end up undermining the very essence of our personal liberty for promises that are unlikely to be realised.

You and I agree, I think, on the challenge of how to design policies that reduce inequality with least harm to anyone affected by them. But think of it this way. If after all these years of quotas the so-called marginalised have not been able to build the capacity to apply those very substantive and comprehensive reforms in domains of health and education that I previously mentioned, then what does it tell us about the promises that were made to us when our leaders said that quotas would end backwardness in our society? I take this historical failure of quotas as a further evidence of both their normative inadequacy (pretending to combat discrimination while actually used for solidifying communalism-as-dominance at the expense of the individual-as-equal) as well as their practical incapacity (where, by their nature, quotas are implemented at the end-stage of a given process so that one ends up confusing an artificial number of candidates qualifying for quota-mandated positions as a sign of progress when, in fact, that number is largely fictitious and of doubtful value in assessing genuine social transformation).

For reasons that should disturb each and every citizen of the Republic, the revolution of the mind is yet to occur, a revolution that would allow men, women, and everyone to free themselves from ascriptive destinies. Our response to this absent revolution can only be thus: to keep striving, to keep working, to fight the scourge of caste and every other kind of stratification with absolute integrity. An inhumane system that ranks human life is unworthy of either explicit respect or implicit toleration. And this is where the structures of our democracy, imperfect as they may be, are supposed to prepare and assist us. They provide us the means to organise, agitate, and revolt. None of this is to pretend that such a revolutionary endeavour is easy. It is not. But it is possible. It is necessary. And it is just.

I maintain that quotas have allowed us all to grow morally complacent. We have become wishful in thinking that quotas alone will achieve social justice. For reasons that I have already cited above, this is a grave error on our part. Hence my maximalist stand: abjure the quota, annihilate the caste. And whate stands in our way, be it religion or culture, whatever prevents us from destroying this social and moral plague, we must be total in our willingness to rid ourselves of it as well.

In other words, what I am calling for are not half-measures. The time for them is long over. Now is the hour to be absolute and to have the courage to define our ideals that enable every sentient being to live truly and beautifully, and for whose preservation we are prepared to devote all of ourselves.

Surely it is not at all insane if you don't phrase it as contentiously as you do. Democratic liberal societies are in part about the fair allocation of limited national resources to create a fairer society, such as university places, or government jobs, in order to achieve social ends such as uplifting certain sections of society that have historically and continue to largely be horribly discriminated against.

You may disagree with this as a worthy aim or that there are more effective ways of doing so, but as stated in the other response above, if you take away quotas, most likely they will be replaced with very little to nothing, or empty promises.

Thanks for your considered reply, though a lot of it presupposes agreement on the relative importance of personal liberties and individualism.

Your fourth point though remains the most relevant but also unclear: sure, there are probably many better mechanisms than quotas, such as investment in schooling, etc. But do you think if you abolish quotas there will be any guarantee that they will be replaced with anything commensurate, and won't just stay abolished.

If you want to abolish quotas at any time in future, those investments and reforms in education must to happen now, because they certainly have not for generations. And then maybe, in 10 or 20 years, it would be more realistic to begin to talk about abolishing quotas (though it probably still wouldn't be nearly enough yet nor a society of equal opportunities for all, and there will be little guarantees to those communities that such investments would even continue once quota perks have been lost).

Right now, it would just be taking away something from the already disadvantaged, and, realistically, replacing it with very little to nothing. Or do you see a practical way forward?

This is a very poor argument. You identify a specific problem, namely, of discrimination, and then you decide to respond to that problem through an extreme solution and without even attempting to use other potential solutions that are much more proportionate to the scope of your problem.

This is like cutting the hands of a person in order to make sure they never steal. It is insane and it does not even achieve that someone will not steal because you impaired them. That is what your quotas do. You simply judge an individual as guilty of discrimination on account of who they were born to and punish them by telling them that they must pay for what their forefathers allegedly did. This is not democracy. This is medievalism. And it is what is called casteism. And quotas are intensely casteist by nature. Quotas have no place in a society that is truly committed to egalitarianism.

You want to “compensate” those who hail from less-than-fortunate backgrounds? You invest in their childhood, their health and education. You make sure they go to schools that are well equipped in both infrastructure and pedagogy. You make sure that they have access to public goods like sports and playgrounds. What you do not do is promise them a seat by virtue of their birth without preparing them to do justice to themselves once they are on that seat. Because no matter how many seats you give away, it will not make any difference if that seat is already broken, literally and metaphorically, by the time your intended beneficiary arrives to sit on it.

Reply to your first question: you are confusing welfarism with consociationalism. When a citizen pays tax in a modern democracy, they do so fully aware that their contribution is public in nature, i.e., it is to be used for developing public goods. Unlike quotas, the underlying principle of using taxes for public welfare is not exclusionary because the latter recognises the equality of every citizen. Even when taxes are used to provide special access to public goods for a specific class of citizens, it is not done so at the absolute expense of other citizens. Quotas, on the other hand, follow a manifestly different logic: they explicitly partition public goods and define who can and cannot access them on grounds that have little to do with either welfare or equity.

Reply to your second question: it is a pity that you have framed the principle of individual responsibility as a straw man under whose guise so-called “oppressors” continue to thrive. But your point remains under-developed. It is one thing to recognise inequality as a moral concern and say that one must do their utmost to reduce it. It is another thing to utilise that moral concern to encourage the politics of quotas that, by their own logic, are intensely communal and denigrating of any free-thinking individual. In one go, to satisfy your moral righteousness, you have happily sacrificed the dignity of the individual by reducing their life to a function of their genetic heritage. Besides, you know only too well that the picture of “more privileged castes” that you paint here is not so black-and-white either. There is a reason why Indian judiciary had to come up with the innovation of “creamy layer” within the allegedly backward communities precisely because the reality of who is privileged on-the-ground does not align as neatly to specific forms of caste identities as you would like to claim.

Reply to your third questions: this is nothing if not emotionally exploitative language. Once again, you are using your moral concern against inequality and discrimination to justify measures that are easily extreme to the point that they extinguish the liberal conception of democracy and civil rights as well as hardly doing anything to actually ameliorate your moral concerns. I contend that quotas are not just a moral abomination but also a practical failure in policy making. The quotas you defend are worse than “imperfect” because although their supporters justify them on grounds of combating discrimination, the truth is that the real cause of supporting quotas has always been the communal logic of domination and submission. In a stratified society like India, there is nothing revolutionary about relying on quotas because it is simply the easiest thing to do and it enables, under the false guise of oppressor-oppressed binary, the politics of which group can dominate another group. Do you not already see what this politics has done to whatever little hopes we had when we inaugurated our Republic? Do you not see that your quotas have only enabled elites from different groups to thrive without contributing to the kind of holistic and welfare development for which I am more than happy to contribute my taxes to?

Reply to your fourth question: the fact of the matter is that quotas were, and remain, the low-hanging fruit of our discourse. They are easier to advocate for not because they are truly revolutionary and emancipatory but precisely because they are not. You want real change that is comprehensive and sustainable? You start with schools. You start with teachers. You start with investment and innovation in pedagogy. You start by acknowledging the fact that there is really no substitute for a childhood spent in a well-maintained classroom and in presence of teachers who are responsible for moral and intellectual development of the young student. After all these decades, we have not done this precisely because it is difficult, because it is expensive, not just in terms of resources needed but also in terms of moral imagination that we simply do not possess. Quotas exist because we have abdicated our moral imagination. But quotas will not achieve what we all pretend to achieve through them. You know it. And so do I. But here I am, inviting you to recognise this farce of quotas whose only promise is to give someone a seat somehow without bothering to prepare them to be worthy of that seat in the first place. What do you think happens when entire generations grow up learning that excellence and integrity are lesser principles than one’s membership in a community and into which they were born by accident? What kind of a democracy and discourse does that lead to? Think, for your own sake and for others. Think.

Merit and IQ are elitist concepts that privilege whites and Asians in the US, upper castes in India. In reality, many law firm jobs are clerical and don't require a high IQ. Anyone can do it. So no harm in taking low LSAT scorers from black communities in Harvard, low CLAT rankers from SC/ST communities in NLSIU.

Even in the sciences and medicine, most jobs will become clerical once AI takes over.

Fairness cuts both ways and your call for so called 'meritocracy' only goes so far. Do you object to taxes being spent on any welfare programmes? Is it fair that intergenerational wealth and the opportunities this creates exist disproportionally in the more privileged castes, i.e. entirely by their 'genetics' having not been the cause of their unfair oppression for hundreds of years or longer? Could a fairer society not be created if we try to address some of that, however imperfectly? Do you have any other suggestions of how this could be done?

RML seems to have become strangely invisible in conversations around NLU placements. Other NLUs seem to have a much stronger recruiter/alumni ecosystem and far more discussion around their placement outcomes, while at RML there is barely any clarity about what's actually happening.

I don't even know how many students from the 2027 batch have secured placements/PPOs so far. I’ve also heard that the RCC did not even start mailing firms for Day Zero until the end of July. If that is true, that seems deeply concerning for this batch and the upcoming batches.

Is the problem the administration? RCC? Alumni who aren't doing enough to bring recruiters back? Faculty? Students? Or has RML simply lost its standing with recruiters and the broader NLU ecosystem?

For a university that is supposed to be one of the established NLUs, why is nobody really talking about RML anymore? What exactly went wrong and does anyone have a realistic picture of the current placement situation?

It would be if it your looks were in your control. You can be your best self or not. Having said that racists are racists no matter the looks - they may be a little intimidated but with enough goading and encouragement, no matter how handsome or pretty the victim, the racist will attempt to strike.

Random UG Program on Forensic Science? Do you forget it is B.Sc. LL.B. and not B.Sc. and we study the syllabus as our BA counterpart. Till last sem we even had common papers for both the batches.

Also get your facts right regarding attendance policy. In my three years here every sem there is a drama regarding attendance and they debar quite a lot of people despite having non functional pathetic erp portal or sometimes no portal to check your attendance at all. Further we only get a total of only 30 days of internship exemption in 4th and 5th year combined. 0 attendance policy and 24x7 internships is utterly misleading. Clown please your facts right before you comment.

tips for 4-5th year students interested in getting into commercial (& civil/regulatory) litigation? what kind of internships should one take up to build skills required in hardcore litigation, esp. as first-gen? what subjects should one absolutely have a grasp of? what other activities can the student undertake?

I think among the more recent graduates of all NLUs, Sameer Rashid Bhatt stands out for his work on access. He has founded Project Eduacces (guess what? with another GNLU grad Gayathree Devi Kaliyat). The work they are doing through it is inspirational without any publicity. It's a tall claim but he is like Prof. Shamnad Basheer.

Might be too premature of a question with not enough data but try to entertain me. If a T1 team in B&F has hired 2 new freshers through PPO in 2026, what are the chances of a 4th year (2028 grad) on a call-back to get a PPO in 2027/2028? The firm has 3-4 such other teams in the same location in the practice, which seems to be growing.

Please don’t go there if you have a better option. The interns are filled up in one small room and there’s no exposure to investigations team. I haven’t even received my internship certificate till date and a cointern who got it, received it with a spelling mistake. The HR tracks you like that’s their only job and certain parts of the office are “not allowed” for interns at all. Sometimes they’ll stop you from having Friday snacks also. Seems like the partners don’t talk to PA’s, PA’s don’t talk to SA’s and SA’s don’t talk to associates. Most associates (barring a few) are rude and you’re made to feel like shit if you ask questions.

Have heard partners yell at people in hallways and the attrition rate in general is very high.

Briefly spoke to one of the associates during a smoke break, and he also was of the opinion that the culture has got bad lately. He couldn’t talk much obv because they’re not supposed to talk to interns because they’re afraid that confidential data might get leaked if they talk to us..

Practical training is an essential part of LLB education due to its link to theoretical knowledge and practical application. Practical training helps students comprehend how legal theories are put into practice with case study, legal research, and procedure, and it can even enhance communication, analytical thinking, drafting, and problem-solving abilities. These experiences allow future lawyers to feel more confident while performing various tasks related to law. The right choice oflaw degree college in Tamil Nadu will allow you to get this experience.

In addition to classroom training, students have the opportunity to attend mock courts, engage in legal research, and participate in internship programs. This type of exposure allows students to know their professional responsibilities better. Besides, this is the way to figure out what areas of law they like most and which of them will fit their future career best. You should find the perfect combination of theoretical and practical learning. You can visit V.M.N Institute for this purpose.

its really unfortunate that NUJS could not sustain the momentum

it had pioneered the UK-India summer school model, however, owing to internal politicking, the person who led the first two editions of the summer school was sidelined during the regime change and as such the entire edifice collapsed, the KCL team as also disappointed and is looking for new partners in India

this shows even a fantatsic product which has high reputation and does very well may not survive when the leadership shifts, when will the upper echeleon learn to let the good products stay

I'm confused. I've just completed my Master's degree and received a job offer from a private university with a decent package. On the other hand, I've also qualified for the UGC JRF. What would be the smartest choice for me at this point: pursuing a full-time PhD or taking the job? My heart longs for a PhD, but my financial constraints tempt me to take the job.

Governing bodies of IIMs and IITs are stacked with alumni. Sudhir has done that for NLSIU now. Why have we not seen the same for NALSAR, NUJS, NLUD, GNLU, NLUJ, NLIU etc? These colleges now have many alumni who are accomplished enough to deserve a seat. In the West, Presidents and Prime Ministers in their 30s and 40s is now the norm.

Any thoughts on this?

the academic buildings are slated to be completed by Dec 2027 (though given the recent report from the project engineer it may take six more months)

hostel on new lands is completely up in the air, the DPR is yet to be tabled before the EC, so at least 3-4 years from now

the other ongoing constructions to be completed in various stages next year

This is indeed true. I was his senior and I follow him on IG and he’s currently promoting his space law book in Europe.

Bar and Bench also reported that he advised on a 500 Crore QIP for some construction company. I know seasoned transaction lawyers who have worked years but haven’t originated and led transactions that are 500 Cr and above.

Contacts aren’t everything. I am a 2nd gen lawyer too…they can get you in the circles but if you mess up you will fall down harder.