If it's a Public M&A team, through and through, read up on LODR (for directors/ reg 30 intimations and stuff), ICDR (entire issue process), Takeover code and buyback regulations. From a general transaction perspective, read up about all sections and rules of CA 13, for issuance and transfer of shares (42, 62, and 56 atleast) meetings (BM/EGM and SS-1, SS-2) directors, Merger related Sections 230-234 etc. For DD's, its always chapter specific, if its corp, read everything secretarial related to normal processes of companies, for employment/ regulatory, always read financials + DRHP of a similarly placed company, you can also go through labour codes and legacy labour laws (since review period of DD's will always be in the past, legacy laws would still be relevant). For Fema, read NDI through and through and remember important forms (FC-GPR/ FC-TRS/ DI/ FLA/ APR etc), brush up your skills on how to do litigation searches and IP searches from public databases (if your team does those in-house), read about what articles of stamp duty schedules are commonly referred to for transaction documents etc

Matuas are split thanks to intercine Thakur family battles. Now reports suggest that many Matuas got delisted or couldn't get into the list. So what good has CAA done?

Separately, a section of the Rajbanshis in North Bengal are shifting to Greens.

Is the Joker really serious or just rhetoric? Anyway we are the captive audience of this circus. So we are f*****d anyway

Names deleted: 64 lakh

Names added: 1.83 lakh

Names under adjudication (to be reviewed by judges per SC order): 60 lakh

Difference between TMC and BJP votes in 2024 election: 42 lakhs

https://www.freepressjournal.in/amp/india/election-commission-publishes-final-voters-list-in-bengal-64-lakh-names-deleted-after-sir

What do you mean by chief architect? There are other people who played a bigger role than her in that matter. Just because a magazine thought it would be a nicer piece to portray her and Katju as partners driving this crusade, that automatically makes it her sole contribution?

Based on the experience of a few people close to me on both sides of the interview table, the short answer is this. Of course the VC prefers that the candidates whom he knows should get through. We all prefer to work with people whom we know and like. However, the people whom Sudhir knows and likes are usually capable and competent, so it is not hurting NLS so far. Are they the very best who could have been chosen? Not always, but the best is at times subjective.

Anyone know what is going on ? I am hearing serious rumours about very qualified applicants being passed over and not interviewed. Folks getting interviews when they are relatively inexperienced and not published. Folks being repeatedly invited to apply and then rejected. Nepotistic hiring with folks who worked with the VC and others at previous institutions being preferred. Applications not even being considered if folks currently on faculty don’t “vouch” for the applicants. And about the interview process being a sham.

I always heard a handful of complaints previously but this hiring round I heard this stuff from multiple people in multiple institutions. It’s really made me think the idea of the VC trying to replace old nepotistic practices with merit based hiring might just be a myth.

For what it’s worth - I’ve not applied and nor have I ever applied to nls, but I was considering it in a year or so and now I’m unsure they will have a fair process.

What is the unvarnished truth? Can qualified well published applicants expect a fair hearing even if they don’t have suction with anyone at nls ? Or is it not worth it to apply?

Yes. Pranayam really helps in Anxiety. Just watch few videos of breath exercise on YT.

Also, it will take 3-4 days for effect and do just 1-2 times a day, it just takes 10 minutes. And you may see relief, genuinely.

Please don't scroll reels and all too much. And avoid using devices. Genuinely it gives instant results. I went on to feel like, take me to PAGALKHANA. But it helped me a bit.

One more thing, if you have any direct issue due to which you are facing all these issues. Please try to resolve it. If not, above may work.

I know I may sound like cleshe. But it works!! Genuinely works!!

Let me begin by saying that I genuinely appreciate the seriousness of your response. I don’t see this as a disagreement about standards, but about how constitutional cultures are actually built within universities.

I agree that no one should expect undergraduates to move from classroom essays straight to publishing in journals like the International Journal of Constitutional Law. Serious constitutional scholarship is cumulative and iterative. The developmental cycle you outline, essays, research proposals, longer projects, workshops, and refinement, is both realistic and desirable.

Where I would still slightly differ is on what the anxiety originally was about. The concern was not that students must immediately produce a peer-review-ready scholarship. It was whether constitutional engagement meaningfully survives beyond examinations, whether it becomes part of a law school’s lived intellectual culture.

You rightly highlight faculty research seminars as important spaces. I completely agree. But institutional culture is not only about formal permission; it is about active invitation and normalisation. If undergraduates are not explicitly encouraged into those spaces, many will assume they are not meant to inhabit them.

There is also another dimension to this that we should not ignore: student initiative. Many law schools today have societies, clubs, and faculty-led centres dedicated to constitutional law and public policy. The question is not merely whether these exist, but whether students are willing to take ownership of them. Institutional scaffolding matters, but so does student appetite.

For instance, at NLU Delhi, I have recently seen on social media that certain student groups are actively attempting to create a culture of public law discussion, organising talks, engaging with students' writing, and sustaining conversations outside the classroom. These may not yet resemble Humboldtian research ecosystems, but they are attempts at cultural formation. That, in itself, suggests that constitutional engagement is not entirely retreating, while it may simply be uneven and evolving.

On H. M. Seervai: I agree he likely succeeded more because of individual discipline than institutional perfection. But if excellence depends solely on rare individual drive, then constitutional culture remains fragile. The real question is whether institutions and students together can lower the threshold of entry into serious engagement without lowering intellectual standards.

And perhaps that is where we converge:

Rigour must remain non-negotiable. But access to the process of becoming rigorous must not be restricted to the already-formed scholar.

If institutions create spaces and students choose to inhabit them seriously, constitutional discourse does not retreat, but it matures.

Thank you for the response. To clarify:

1. Silence is not being demanded.

2. Obviously, engagement is developmental. As I mentioned, students should try writing blogs and things like that. But the way the original question seems to have been framed is as if students are somehow expected to produce the kind of scholarship that can pass peer-review process that happens for an established constitutional journal like ICON, and as if there is some magic way for institutions to get them to do that. I don't think that is possible. The way I see developmental engagement is:

- First, get students to write essays in response to the prompts of others - classroom work.

- Encourage them to then think about gaps in the literature, etc. Come up with a research proposal for a project - the project to be 5000 to maybe 12500 words.

- Write up that proposal into the actual project. At some stage, maybe write up some smaller argument within the project as a blog to see how it is received. Or even do a very small version of the project as a blog and see how that is received.

- Workshop the project with faculty, fellow researchers, etc, to make it publishable quality.

- Repeat cycle (with slight variations, if necessary) for larger-scale projects.

My understanding of the question's wording may have been wrong, but it seemed like the OP wasn't fully appreciating exactly how much hard work would be required for this - it seemed as though they were skipping from step 1 to step 5.

3. The fact that there is one important thing I forgot to include - an institutional question - that may have also caused the impression to take hold in your mind that I am demanding silence until the scholar is a finished product. One of the things that I have experienced at my university is a culture where events known as faculty research seminars take place a few times a term. This is where a member of the faculty presents a project she is currently working on and is questioned by the fellow attendees of the seminar afterwards - postgraduate students and faculty, who ask questions, provide suggestions, etc. My question is, how many universities have such a culture? And even among the universities that do have such a culture, are undergraduate students allowed to attend such events? My university's policies on this are ambiguous: while they don't prohibit undergraduate students from attending the faculty research seminars, it is certainly not something that is advertised to them or that they are encouraged to attend. Why am I emphasizing so much on UG student attendance at such events? The logic is simple. Undergraduate students may often feel like hesitating a bit before engaging with new ideas in legal scholarship - on the basis that the scholar is so much more qualified than them etc, so will have thought about the objections to the arguments that somebody might come up with. If the faculty research seminar norms are like those at my university, where attendees are expected to have read the material the project author will have given to the seminar chair for circulation (usually an abstract and often a paper draft), and would be considered as exceptions if they didn't ask questions, with the difference that undergraduates are expressly welcomed (as long as they are ready to engage), then why? Where are undergraduates being silenced? If anything, they are being supported to thrive!

4. I think people like HM Seervai tended to succeed more despite their institutions, than because of them. Seervai's accomplishments are far more credit to him than to his university. But the vast majority of people aren't going to be becoming great constitutional law scholars in universities that aren't Humboldtian in character. And as for my use of the word "bilge", students need to produce that before producing other stuff - it's a natural step on the progression ladder to great scholarship.

With respect, this seems to set up a false choice between Dicey-level scholarship and “amateurish bilge.”

By that logic, no undergraduate should write, publish, litigate, or even publicly reflect until they have completed advanced training in jurisprudence, research methods, comparative constitutional law, human rights, and international law. But constitutional cultures are not built that way.

You don’t produce serious scholars by asking them to remain silent until they are already fully formed.

Of course, deep reading matters. Of course, methodological training matters. Of course, jurisprudence and constitutional law must speak to each other, and I agree that institutions should do far more to cultivate that integration.

But engagement is developmental. It is precisely through attempting to write, argue, critique, and sometimes fail that one acquires intellectual discipline. Reading and writing are not sequential stages; they are mutually reinforcing processes.

If we applied your standard historically, how many young lawyers in India would ever have been “qualified” to intervene in constitutional discourse? Government Law College, Mumbai, did not resemble a modern, methodologically intensive research university when it produced H. M. Seervai. Intellectual seriousness did not wait for perfect institutional conditions.

Your institutional questions, however, are well taken:

- - Are jurisprudence and constitutional law taught in an interconnected way?
- - Are research assistantships, clerkships, and law commission roles meaningfully encouraged?
- - Do public law centres genuinely involve students?
- - Are public law career paths institutionally valorised alongside corporate ones?

Those are structural concerns. But they cut both ways. If students are told their early efforts are presumptively “bilge” unless they are the next Dicey, that itself discourages the very culture of constitutional engagement we claim to want.

The goal is not to prematurely produce the next great theorist. It is to ensure that constitutional reasoning remains an active, living part of law school life, not something deferred until one acquires a PhD and methodological certification.

Seriousness should be demanded. Silence should not.

How is a standard form DTD or FA intellectually stimulating when the laws and provisions being applied are very limited? Agree that structuring is interesting and adds to the learning curve but rest of it is monotonous and routine. Also this practice area is so niche that after a few years you won’t be able to pivot into a different practice area even if you want to- you will know nothing about companies act, data privacy, labour law, contract law, arbitration, IPR, environment law, etc. Not even the basics.

The Congress MP quoted in the news report is blaming Modi, but Punjab is under an AAP government! 😂

Reasons for dropping could be:

1. 1984 riots

2. Rajiv Gandhi never completed college himself

3. Not a Punjabi — AAP could rename it after a Punjabi.

https://newsarenaindia.com/states/patiala-law-varsity-clears-move-to-drop-rajiv-gandhi-from-name/71053

Hello, just wanted to flag this important article: https://www.livelaw.in/articles/national-law-university-523980

TLDR: Very sadly, I must concur that the NLU regime has failed the legal system and become a chicken coop for law firms. I see so many posts here just decrying for a slavery job (not blaming the people but rather the fostered circumstances) and it is very sad how few public prosecution/policy discussions go about as legitimate options.

Understood. But see nothing will change by posting here, I am sure Ravi is already aware of this thread and the issues in his team. As someone has rightly pointed out, this is your career - so play your cards well and figure out if you will be better off (or not) by getting out of this team.

This comment sums up part of the leadership in this team extremely accurately. The seniors in this team are not leaders - they are simply older individuals who feel entitled to behave with and treat juniors however they wish and as per their whims and fancies. Some end up getting the short end of the stick (which are the antagonised juniors you refer to). Some are affected by it only positively (the “favourites” which are being referred to across this thread). I’m sure there performance is linked to this in some strange way. But there are definitely people who don’t do much except delegate and are perceived as high performers. Also the difference in treatment from partners is so stark that it becomes unjustifiable. You are absolutely correct in saying that this is not the culture of the firm. ▮▮▮ Seniors quite literally talk about the juniors in this team like they are inanimate objects (“why don’t you USE xyz for this transaction” and not “why don’t you take the assistance of XYZ”). Unfortunately, there are a few rotten apples in this team who are really well positioned and this destroys the environment for the rest of us. There are definitely some wonderful seniors in the team and there is a lot to learn from them. But there are some people which manage to take away so much from those positive experiences and really ruin the entire experience because of their unchecked behaviours. Really hoping that some solution is figured out by the leadership.

Nalsar never got a great VC. A visionary like Sudhir at NLS is no comparison with the guy at Nalsar ▮▮▮. That makes all the difference. Sudhir has got all the best people and mostly NLS BALLB alumni to teach at NLS. Name a single Nalsar BALLB alumnus who teaches at Nalsar.

No comparison with NLSIU

If by not being "interested in academics" you mean people in NALSAR are uninterested in an academic career, then I am not surprised at all. After all, tell me: other than in NLS, which law school in India genuinely inspires its students to go for academia? At the end of the day, with half-baked papers (half of those plagiarised/written with Chatgpt), teachers reading from slides instead of genuinely teaching, even the good teachers being overburdened with teaching workload, with even people who apply for PhDs spam-applying because they don't know what to do instead of being genuinely wanting to do academia (I will never believe that 650 applications to DU Faculty of Law for PhD in one year, a number I recently heard, is an indicator of that much genuine academia aspiration!!) and with research and writing being seen, as Sudhir might say, like a bonus + bonus instead of an essential quality of a law prof... where in the country do we have a law school where the genuinely rigorous thinkers and academics aren't the exception?

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some honest, experience-based guidance from people in the legal field.

Background:

Age:turning 21 this year

Degree: BA Programme (Economics)

Graduation: 2027

I do have strong interest in law, especially corporate law

I’m considering preparing for CLAT 2026 to target Top 5 NLUs only

My dilemma is that I’m debating between

attempting a 5 yr LLB from a Top 5 NLU (joining at 22, graduating at 27), vs

not pursuing law at all and choosing a different path like company secretary

I cant go for mba because my profile overall is really cooked

I mean stars like Menaka Guruswamy, V Niranjan KC, Akshay Jaitley, Gopal Shankarnarayan, Tarunabh Khaitan, Shamnad Basheer, Sudhir Krishnaswamy etc.

No one from these NLUs has yet reached these heights. It’s true that most other NLUs did not exist when some of the NLSIU luminaries graduated (barring Niranjan, who is younger). But still, the older alumni from NALSAR, NLUJ, NUJS etc will be close to 45 years now. Another 5 -7 years and they will be in their 50s. So fair to speculate whose trajectory is headed there.

Everyone is inherently selfish, and the legal profession often brings out the worst in people.

So I understand that just because it is inconvenient for you, you might say, “it doesn’t work.” But for students in their 3rd, 4th, or 5th year, don’t worry, it does work.

It worked for me when I was in law school, and I am now an associate at a Tier-1 firm. All my internships came through cold emailing. I personally know hundreds of others for whom it worked as well. For a partner, it may feel like a nuisance. But your job as a student is not to worry about the partner. Be as self-interested about your career as they are about their practice. For them, your internship application is insignificant. They have larger priorities. For you, at this stage, securing an internship is one of the most important things. So cold email, cold call, walk in and drop your CV. Do whatever works for you.

PS: Law firm HRs are the most incompetent people I have seen in my life.

Bvp alumni here. Currently working at a decent firm, doing fine for myself, not giving out too much info as there are anyhow very few bvp people who've managed to get into law firms.

My 2 cents on this, in bvp's case I would say do not expect anything from the college except a degrees, can't rely on them for even basic level internship/jobs except for maybe a very select few teacher's pets (dicey even for them tbh). You're literally on your own, this college doesn't give a fuck. But that being said, they're lenient on marks attendance etc, chill place to be. I was able to do shit load of internships (all arranged on my own btw) and eventually get to where I am coz of bvp's chill scene - in a way, being in bvp helped me. One solid plus point over here is that the fees is super affordable especially compared to the bomb sls will cost.

On sls - good name but I'm honestly not sure if it's worth wasting an year, it's no NLU. It'll cost you good money and one extra year - when you're already doing 3 year law (thereby spending one extra year assuming you doing 3+3), not a very great idea.

Lastly, I've had friends/colleagues from sls, in job market we've been treated similarly, no huge advantage for them. At the moment I'm actually making a little bit more than them xD.

One solid advantage of sls - huge alumni network in all firms T1 to T3. Bvp is well, nowhere, bhot dhundhoge toh maybe 5-7 log milenge law firm scene mai.

I know a senior friend who is an A3 who is in medication for adhd. He said to me that the work that is interesting and application based is much more suitable for him than dd (Due diligence) work which requires attention to details. Maybe try advisory heavy teams like tech, competition, disputes (to some extend) rather than dd heavy areas like cap marks and GC.

1) No place for growth for lawyers except a few to whom all the work is given/referred, and they are only given credit, promoted in the system with no client of their own.

2) Ambitious people who want to grow in their careers have already left or will leave soon unless the firm rethinks and starts treating everyone in the firm fairly and equally, and remuneration based on merit.

3) The firm has hired and still wishes to hire laterals, but beware, they are left on their own, with no firm support, and then they are compared to other lawyers who do not have their own book and still work on the firm's clients and get remunerated disproportionately higher (more than their revenue). There is no basis for remuneration.

4) No strategy before any hiring is done, and ultimately, lawyers suffer.