The hearing was part of a larger dispute in which Samaira Kapur and her brother are challenging the validity of their late father’s purported will, which reportedly involves assets worth around Rs 30,000 crore.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the children, said that under a matrimonial decree, Sunjay Kapur was responsible for funding his children’s education and expenses. He claimed that the estate of the children is currently under the control of Priya Kapur, and the fees for Samaira, who is studying in the US, have not been paid for two months.

However, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya Kapur, rejected the claim as baseless and fabricated. He maintained that Priya has consistently provided for the children and that all dues, including the university fees, have already been paid. Nayar also suggested that the issue was raised in court to attract media attention.

…

The children have previously questioned the authenticity of the will and, in court, referred to Priya Kapur as a “Cinderella stepmother," alleging that she prioritises her own interests over theirs. In response, Priya informed the court that the children have already received Rs 1,900 crore from the family trust.

https://www.news18.com/movies/karisma-kapoors-daughter-says-fees-unpaid-for-2-months-delhi-hc-says-dont-want-melodrama-ws-kl-9708655.html

Hello, I am currently working as an in-house counsel in an MNC. I was wondering if it is a good idea to take an internal transfer to a role outside India. Is it a good option for an in-house counsel? And is it normal to take an internal transfer to another country? If yes, which country would you guys refer?

Do you still maintain that Greens will win in WB in 2026 despite the Bihar Wipeout today?

Btw do you think the rumble in Bihar will affect the dynamics in the EC at NUJS. Apparently OVN has publicly stated he prefers minimal EC involvement in univ affairs. So will it be divide and conquer by the OVN and King tag team?

I don't know about you guys, but I think there is a small but growing chance of the political dispensation at NUJS changing. I don't think the 2026 elections are guaranteed to be won by the TMC. They are taking SIR very seriously in Bengal. They came to my house the other day. All my friends and relatives also have officers knocking on their door. I think many TMC fake voters will be removed through SIR. And of course the big Bihar win today gives some psychological momentum.

Even if many GC/EC members switch loyalties, at least the TMC MLAs and ministers, the AG and the pro-TMC retired judge will be out of the NUJS if the TMC loses. That alone can make a big difference.

Assuming the results are out by mid-May, we have 5.5 to 6 months to find out the future direction of NUJS.

Best running gag on LI is how every NLU student has legitimate issues and then GNLU kids pop up with made up elite problems.

Were you held back arbitrarily? Sounds like you didn't have enough attendance! If 50 kids fall short, the requirement should be waived?

Why would you not submit your keys to the hostel, this is a standard routine process followed around the country. That is government property, not a leased apartment.

ok ▮▮▮ that's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. The rules have been consistent that if you're short of attendance you get held back. This wasn't implemented very strictly in the past and is being done now. So the only thing that's really changed is rate of implementation. If you willingly fall short of attendance you will face consequences like any other student in any other NLU. Why is GNLU plagued with such entitled kids

My view on the attendance issue is straightforward: starting from the attendance backlog, the steps taken by the administration were entirely justified. Many students simply do not attend classes, which is unfair to those who do show up every day. The Bar Council of India mandates a minimum of 70% attendance, yet the administration, even after relaxing the rule, merely asked for 40% attendance to allow students to sit for exams. Despite this extremely lenient threshold, some students did not even meet that. And now the same students are complaining and portraying themselves as victims.

When we joined in the first year, our batch had three separate divisions because the class strength supported it. Today, two divisions are merged, and even then the classroom is not full. Even in the middle of the semester, when one would expect attendance to stabilise, the situation was no different. Instead of accepting responsibility for their lack of discipline, many students are shifting the blame onto the administration.

As someone who regularly attended classes and made an effort to ensure I met the attendance requirements, it was disheartening to see students with almost negligible attendance earlier face no consequences. In that sense, the administration’s decision to finally enforce norms is fair and long overdue.

However, the email regarding breaking locks was unacceptable. Such actions should not occur under any circumstance. The administration must ensure sufficient security and proper procedures so that students’ belongings are not put at risk.

This is an overgeneralized and reductive portrayal of the interpretive philosophy. Indian originalism, to the extent it appears in scholarship or jurisprudence does not aspire to restore the Constitution to its 1950 snapshot, nor does it function as a political loyalty test. Rather, it emphasizes the structural logic of the founding text, constituent assembly debates, and the framers’ normative commitments as interpretive aids. Many originalists, in fact, critique the 42nd Amendment precisely because terms like “secular” and “socialist” were already embedded implicitly within the document’s basic structure. Reducing an interpretive school to partisan preference undermines the complexity of Indian constitutional thought;

The reference to informal "Sharia"based dispute-resolution forums in Kerala and the United Kingdom is not inaccurate, but it is presented without adequate constitutional context. Such bodies, like caste panchayats, church mediation cells, or community arbitration groups possess no coercive legal authority in India. They function as socio-cultural negotiation spaces unless their conduct violates statutory rights or public order. The concern becomes constitutionally relevant only when such forums attempt to supplant state institutions or enforce decisions through intimidation or extra-legal coercion. Conflating their sociological presence with a constitutional threat risks overstretching the point, particularly when framed alongside speculative claims of “demographic strategy,” which fall outside rigorous constitutional analysis;

I'm not gonna speak against abrogation of A.370 because it was obviously necessary by our republic's 70th anniversary;

The talk about "Hindu Rasthra" is similarly not possible when the second largest religion in our country is very apprehensive of it;

Further, while it is true that India’s Constitution has evolved through amendments, judicial interpretation, and also political consensus. In reality, constitutional “evolution” has also included episodes of overreach (e.g., the 39th and 42nd Amendments), executive dominance, and judicial oscillation. Describing the document as “living” cannot become a rhetorical shield for all changes; the doctrine of basic structure itself exists precisely to limit the excesses of such evolution. A more rigorous argument would acknowledge that constitutional dynamism must operate within substantive constraints.

Advocates do not always act as custodians of pluralism, equality, and the rule of law. It is in fact laudable that you mentioned this as our noble profession dictates and how legal education is based upon this. However, you are assuming that there is a degree of neutrality which the entire legal profession does not always, unanimously possess. Institutional responsibility cannot be discharged merely through appeals to moderation. Instead, it requires defending constitutional method, resisting populist distortions, and confronting state excess as well as majoritarian or minoritarian pressures.

Jefferson was quoted by Dr Ambedkar in his last speech to the Constituent Assembly and said the following, which I feel is relevant for any such debate:

>These are the main grounds on which the Constitution is being condemned. I do not say that the principle of parliamentary democracy is the only ideal form of political democracy. I do not say that the principle of no acquisition of private property without' compensation is so sacrosanct that there can be no departure from it. I do not say that Fundamental Rights can never be absolute and the limitations set upon them can never be lifted. What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an overstatement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Why blame the Drafting Committee for embodying them in the Constitution? I say why blame even the Members of the Constituent Assembly? Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of Constitution, can never afford to ignore. In one place he has said:-

>“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country”.

>In another place, he has said:

>“The idea that institutions established for the use of the national cannot be touched or modified, even to make them answer their end, because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in the trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but is most absurd against the nation itself Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine, and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do; had a right to impose laws on us, unalterable by ourselves, and that we, in the like manner, can make laws and impose burdens on future generations, which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living”. I admit that what .Jefferson has said is not merely true, but is absolutely true. There can tie no question about it. Had' the Constituent Assembly departed from this principle laid down by Jefferson it would certainly be liable to blame, even to condemnation. But I ask, has it? Quite the contrary. One has only to examine the provision relating to the amendment of the Constitution.(...)

Let me place the current constitutional debate in India in clearer terms than the prevailing political rhetoric permits.

There is much discussion around Originalism. Yet those advocating it today are not, in fact, seeking to restore the Constitution to its 1950 form. What they are really defending are the amendments introduced by the political stalwarts they revere — including the insertion of the terms “secular” and “socialist.” They are right in saying that India’s constitutional architecture is inherently secular, even without those labels. But this argument is now deployed rather selectively, depending on what the politics of the moment demands.

Simultaneously, sections of minority leadership have seized upon the same point to criticise the present government for highlighting conduct that does raise serious governance concerns. We cannot shy away from acknowledging that parallel systems of community-based adjudication — grounded in Sharia norms — operate informally in certain pockets of Kerala and in some towns in the United Kingdom. These are empirically documented realities. And they will inevitably expand when combined with an openly articulated strategy of demographic growth.

On the Originalist side, however, there is a notable inconsistency. Some of the very people who wish to defend the amendments they approve of are also calling for the rollback of amendments linked to Article 370 — overlooking the fact that the constitutional integration of Jammu & Kashmir began decades ago, often through the very political figures whose legacy they champion. This is not constitutional theory; it is selective constitutional memory.

At the opposite extreme, we hear fringe voices within the present establishment advocating that India be formally declared a Hindu state that merely “tolerates” other religions. This is constitutionally indefensible and conceptually flawed. A republic does not “tolerate” its citizens; it affirms their equal standing under the law.

The truth is simple: India’s Constitution has always been a living document. It has evolved steadily and responsibly — through amendments, judicial interpretation, and political consensus. We should be grateful that, unlike some of our neighbours, we have not veered into the kind of extreme, exclusionary constitutional experiments seen elsewhere. But it would be naïve to assume that such dangers cannot surface in India.

This is precisely where the legal fraternity carries a distinct responsibility. Lawyers are not merely participants in the system; we are custodians of its ethos. We are expected to articulate, calmly and clearly, the principles that have held India together — pluralism, equality, and the rule of law. There are fringe elements on both sides of the political spectrum capable of undermining these values. Our task is to ensure that the Constitution remains the anchor of our democracy, not its casualty.

Hi,

I’m currently in my last year of law. I’ve not got any assessment internship yet but i have 2 internships scheduled till march.

I have good references in tier 1 firms so when should I approach them through my references for a job?

And also which t1 firm will be the best for such hiring in dispute resolution area

As mentioned before, the near decade-long drought of Rhodes scholars at NLSIU is a thing of the past, because:

1. Sudhir has made Rhodes a priority

2. Students shortlisted for Rhodes are getting excellent mentoring from the good faculty Sudhir has employed. Nandan Kamath (Rhodes India Secretary) has also been made a visiting faculty (different matter whether that is a conflict of interest).

3. Subtle lobbying by alumni.

4. Consequently, other NLUs have declined. A faculty exodus has taken place across the board, so they don't have good mentoring. The leadership is also poor. The present VCs of NALSAR, NLUD and NUJS are all mediocre.

Other NLUs urgently need alumni in charge to up their game.

Why are you offended? Depending on the team you applied for, your prestigious experience may have been of no use to them. Law firm litigation, pleading and clients, combined with mechanics of working in large T1 law firms, is not something which you would have any useful experience of (unless you were with a senior who is regularly briefed by law firms, which seems unlikely based on the little information divulged in your post). Plus, constitutional matters are of little or no relevance for commercial litigation practices at law firms. So maybe get off your high horse, and get your expectations in order before you waste another law firm's time, because all reputable law firms are going to treat you similarly.

1. Depends on whether you’re interning with the DT or IDT team. If its the IDT team, you should have a fair idea about CGST, IGST and Customs + Customs Tariff Act. You don’t have to read any such landmark case but must have idea about certain concepts such as ITC, scope of supply, composite/mixed supplies, extended period of limitation, drawback rules etc.

2. LKS in general has a very friendly and inclusive work environment. The work gets over by 7pm for interns and even for associates it gets over by 8pm.

3. Presentation depends on the team.

4. Learn how to use TMI, taxmann and other websites like taxguru etc.

JGLS offers merit cum means scholarships ranging from 10% to 75% of tuition fees. The hostel fee is not covered. It is mandatory to live on campus as 5 year LLB programs is a residential program.

LNAT–UK Score

Scholarship Eligibility

Scholarship Amount (Per Year)

35–42

75% Tuition Fee

₹5,25,500

30–34

50% Tuition Fee

₹3,50,000

25–29

25% Tuition Fee

₹1,75,000

20–24

10% Tuition Fee

₹70,000

Yes. There are matters. Or at least there were when I was there. I heard work has slowed down recently. You can learn if you go out of your way to ask to get involved in more substantial work. Otherwise its the usual grunt work and research. Again, its you learning from the matters directly. Don't expect any partner or even associate to help or support you.

CNLU has unfortunately been declining severely. Competition from other NLUs and various private law schools, along with the poor economic situation of Bihar, have pushed it to the bottom rung of NLUs. The government doesn’t give much funding, preferring to spend on freebie populist schemes.

Can we expect any changes now, or status quo?

Goldman Sachs on Thursday strongly backed its top lawyer, Kathy Ruemmler, a day after a congressional committee released her chummy emails with notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epsteinbefore she joined the investment bank.

Those emails feature Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel to former President Barack Obama, and Epstein exchanging thoughts about President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and overweight highway rest stop patrons.

"See you at 2, I ordered sushi for you," Epstein wrote Ruemmler in March 2018 as part of an email thread that began with him sending her a Daily Beastarticle headlined, "How close is Donald Trump to a psychiatric breakdown?"

Those emails came about 17 months before Epstein's arrest on federal child sex trafficking charges. He killed himself weeks after that arrest in a Manhattan jail.

Ruemmler is Goldman's chief legal officer and general counsel.

Goldman Sachs spokesman Tony Fratto, in a statement to CNBC, said, "These emails were private correspondence well before Kathy Ruemmler joined Goldman Sachs."

"Kathy is an exceptional general counsel and we benefit from her judgment every day," Fratto said.

Ruemmler did not respond to requests for comment about her emails with Epstein on Thursday.

In 2023, Ruemmler told The Wall Street Journal, "I regret ever knowing Jeffrey Epstein."

Ruemmler, who served as Obama's White House general counsel and as a federal prosecutor, exchanged emails with Epstein while she was a partner with the law firm Latham & Watkins, where she was global chair of the white-collar defense and investigations practice.

The Journal in 2023 reported that Ruemmler "had dozens of meetings with Epstein in the years after her White House service and before she became a top lawyer at Goldman Sachs ... in 2020."

"He also planned for her to join a 2015 trip to Paris and a 2017 visit to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean," the Journal reported then. The newspaper, citing a Goldman Sachs spokesman, reported that Epstein introduced her to potential legal clients, including Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft.

Goldman has previously said that Ruemmler had a professional relationship with Epstein connected to her role at Latham, but Latham also has said he was not a client of that firm.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/11/13/goldman-sachs-jeffrey-epstein-emails-ruemmler.html