My friend, see, we are getting to the problem. You are thinking way too much as a lawyer and too little as a market participant who needs help from a fair trade regulator.

"I'm just fundamentally against a setup that combines investigative and adjudicative powers with the same authority. I'm well aware of the CCPA, SEBI and other such frameworks. My scepticism applies to them equally."

In sum, your constitutional idealism – a version that comes from strict separation of powers, which, by the way, is not even practised across the board here in India among regulators, not even in the EU, since a full review appellate forum is in place – now stands in the way of parties having an effective forum to complain about malevolence in the market.

You place 100% fairness above everything, ignoring practical realities and institutional precedent – to the detriment of the object of the Act.

Why is "suo motu" important? I will give you several, besides chopping off 3 months from the timeline by doing away with preliminary hearings.

First, where there is a power imbalance in the market, there aren't many complainants to go around. If a supplier or vendor filed a CCI complaint, they would often be destroying a market relationship. Having no "suo motu" powers forces market participants to risk their capital to seek a remedy for what they believe is unfair. They barely do. Which is also why the CCI is stuck with forum-shopping cases and Hail Mary passes – the real cases of market abuse will not see the light of day, even with the provision for anonymous informants. Any investigation from an anonymous informant will be rife with writs as well.

Second, it is a vicious cycle of the first; no suo motu powers for the CCI encourages impunity for those who do have market power, knowing they have commercial leverage over those who would complain. This isn't new – a simple study of cartel dynamics should explain this. Members in a cartel are not equal. The CCI recently realised this in a set of orders that identified a ringleader. Imagine the number of SMEs in India stuck with one-sided clauses. The MSME Act protects invoices and receivables; Section 3(4) of the CCI was supposed to protect their options. Go to dealer negotiations and see what life-and-death powers people have over someone else's blood and sweat.

Third, the CCI carries a big stick, which was somewhat curbed by Excel Corp and by guidelines that emerged from Ramana's decision. Now you have Big Tech, which is out to shape and size that stick. The stick is being moved from deterrence to a cost of doing business – something manageable. By removing suo motu, you reduce the number of times the stick can potentially hit you, making the CCI risk for management "manageable". Go inside a sales and marketing team and watch the befuddlement when you tell them you cannot talk to competitors. Then go watch the management conversation with them where they "price" the CCI risk.

Finally, there is a brief window for market censure when the risks are not fully realised by the company under investigation and when affected parties are sufficiently motivated not to self-censor. If the CCI were to open a suo motu case and then allow interim order hearings, there would be a window for a party to take advantage before single-party threats and incentives hit back. The CCI fails to realise how parties under investigation can affect the investigation as it drags on in the Indian political economy. Lawyers know this – we all adjourn till the roster changes or till the government and government pleader change.

You reduce institutional capture to just discretion that affects the final outcome of the case. Your concerns exist; I don't deny them. Like how the CCI will now use its discretion in the settlement and commitments regime, which cannot be challenged before an appellate forum. However, throughout the world, the biggest discretion that antitrust enforcers with finite resources face is "prioritisation". Not HOW they analyse a market or WHY they analyse in a particular manner, but WHICH markets they look at and WHEN they focus on them. Discretion is actually far greater in the WHICH and WHEN than the HOW and WHY. The HOW and WHY will be heard by an appellate court. Which and when will not. Further, "WHICH" matters because it determines which resources are applied, and "WHEN" determines how early a problem is diagnosed (leading to ex-ante or post-facto questions).

On Meta, specialised regulatory bodies like the CCI were granted powers to regulate their own procedures and to act as civil courts, but they remain fully subject to writ jurisdiction. The judicial branch could review the bias. Meta elected it, used it and lost it. Too many parties have been abusing the Bharti judgment, in my view, treating it as a case establishing regulatory walled gardens. It does not. Thankfully, there is a High Court decision now stating so. Bodies like the CCI with civil court powers – this was, firstly, meant to be enabling, not stifling; and second, due process was to follow. Instead, over time, tribunals have adopted the worst traits of civil courts and their trappings, with prolonged delays. I will grant you that institutional design is a problem, but so is institutional ossification.

Boss are you thick? The CJI is not a political actor, and if his political affiliations are even remotely visible (let alone so brazenly) then it indicates a rot that goes to the core of how the country is run currently? Kant is the CJI, not your drunk uncle at a family dinner where his actions can be ignored

Yes, supporting a political party openly while being incumbent in the highest judicial office of the country is more than enough to draw the ire. Officeholders should be held responsible for their actions while in office, and not just how they fulfill their official responsibilities, which for some reason is a point that goes above your head

I’m sorry totally ridiculous. Faculty anyway can’t enroll. Faculty stay silent because most of them have matured and are somewhat moderate. Those that haven’t - understand that they’re in a government job and need to have some discipline. But the idea that the left is censored in academia is ridiculous on the face of it- the left hasn’t ever dominated academia more

Moves happen all the time. People move for all reasons. Maybe it is just too many in a small period of time that is causing all the furore. Whenever big institutions go through such periods, there is a storm. Institutions that weather such storms and in doing so, course correct are the ones that live on.

This is an absolutely defamatory thread which seeks to only, without any reason, bring disrepute to a big name like CAM. Yes, it is true that some have left, but as someone mentioned, these persons are not high billers for the firm. There are very capable people within the firm to take on the matters/clients that these individuals have left behind.

Further, the news of other senior partners like RC leaving is complete nonsense which has been put in the air to unnecessarily alarm clients. Stop spreading lies and defamatory statements. Otherwise, we will be forced to take legal measures.

Thats a nice list. Most of these names are highly regarded in their resoective industry sectors. Now please prepare one which idents who moved in. Lets see how the replacements compare in terms of industry standing and repute. Clients deserve to know where and who they are placing their trust in.

1. Where are BA LLB supporters? Well, here's one: me.

2. There is a comprehensive argument to study each and every one of the subjects you have listed, but I am going to give you a pretty persuasive one for only one of them: philosophy. Here's an article from The Economist, 24th June 2026. It tells you everything you need to know. If you think about it, you are the one who looks like an idiot, not anybody else.

Why big AI labs are hiring so many philosophers

The technology presents all sorts of thorny problems—a philosopher’s favourite kind

Jun 24th 2026

Ten years ago, as the ai revolution was gathering pace, arts and humanities students were told that, if they wanted to make themselves employable, they should “learn to code”. That may have been bad advice. These days, it is programmers who are nervous about ai taking their jobs.

They might consider learning to philosophise. Earlier this year the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published figures showing that American philosophy graduates are more likely to have jobs than their peers who studied computer science. In 2024, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 7% of those who had studied computer science were unemployed, against just 5.1% of philosophers.

Many are being snapped up by ai firms themselves. Students get job offers before they have graduated, says Luciano Floridi, a philosopher at Yale University. Academics are moving, too. Dr Floridi describes the scale of departures from philosophy departments as a “haemorrhaging”.

Some of the lessons that philosophy can offer ai researchers are ancient. The Socratic method—as described by Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher—uses feigned ignorance and sequential questioning to clarify meanings, spot contradictions and reveal ramifications. Many current ai systems tend towards sycophancy. Models trained in the Socratic method, says Jörg Noller, an expert on philosophy and ai at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, are less keen on people-pleasing and more willing to pursue the truth.

Then there is the idea of “Socratic ignorance”. In the “Apology”, Plato has Socrates claim that his wisdom consists mostly of being aware of how much he does not know. Implanting that humility into a model can help limit overconfidence, a common flaw that Dr Noller describes as “ai immaturity”. Iason Gabriel, a senior philosopher at Google DeepMind, an ai lab based in London, attributes an industry-wide decline in hallucinations to such efforts. More broadly, he says, philosophy lessons are “a powerful mechanism” for improving long ai reasoning processes known as “chains of thought”.

Philosophical training can also affect a model’s outlook in more specific ways. Feed an ai legal assistant the writings of John Locke, says Thomas Powers, a philosopher of technology at the University of Delaware, and it will favour robust property rights as an underpinning of political liberty. And if you don’t like those principles, the model-makers have others. The “Granite” series of models from ibm, an American computing giant, come with dials that let business customers better align outputs with their own corporate philosophies. Francesca Rossi, ibm’s head of responsible ai, says these can let users choose where to strike the balance between philosophical trade-offs, such individual agency versus social harmony.

Philosophy can help with safety, too. Researchers have documented all sorts of ominous behaviour in ai models, including attempts to evade oversight and even blackmail their users. One way model-makers try to discourage this sort of misbehaviour is called ai constitutionalism. This involves building a model around a scaffolding of rules and principles culled from philosophical writings with legal or moral authority.

Anthropic, an ai lab based in San Francisco, is one proponent. Constitutions for its Claude models have incorporated material from sources as diverse as Immanuel Kant, Apple’s terms of service and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latest iteration, led by Anthropic’s top philosopher, Amanda Askell, was published on January 21st. Some staff at Anthropic have nicknamed the 78-page constitution Claude’s “soul doc”.

The biggest question, though, is what sorts of rules should be put in those constitutions in the first place. Philosophers have zeroed in on two main ethical frameworks. One is deontology. Popular with Kant, among others, this imposes strict rules that prohibit things like lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end, even if it is for a greater good. Anthropic’s constitution incorporates many deontological strictures. These can make ai behaviour more consistent, says Dr Powers—a plus for deploying robots in homes and public spaces.

Models with a deontological take on the world have other benefits. One is greater honesty, a trait widely noted in Claude. Models that are more truthful, says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, are less likely to mislead their users. Inflection ai, another Silicon Valley lab, imposes deontological constraints onto its Pi chatbot, which is designed to provide emotional support. Sean White, its boss, says Pi is good at spotting users at risk of harming themselves or others. Deontological constitutions also help with legal compliance, says Dr Floridi.

The other approach to ethics of interest to philosophers of ai is called consequentialism. It weighs costs against benefits to decide what to do. Models more sympathetic to consequentialism include OpenAI’s Chatgpt and Google’s Gemini. Google’s ai models are designed to produce “likely overall benefits [that] substantially outweigh the foreseeable risks”, a classic consequentialist goal.

Consequentialist algorithms are also crucial in software for autonomous vehicles: if an accident is unavoidable, a decision must be made on the least tragic way to crash. Chris Gerdes, a senior engineer at Waymo, which makes self-driving cars, says the trend is to make driving software more consequentialist. Consequentialism is also central to ai weapon systems. Military objectives must be weighed against possible civilian deaths, says Jack Shanahan, a former head of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Centre, which studies ai for America’s armed forces.

Thorny problems abound—a philosopher’s favourite sort. Are there cases when deontological rules should be overridden? How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear? Should ai systems take into account animal welfare, or the state of the environment? Would it be morally acceptable, asks Stefan Heck, a philosopher and the boss of Nauto, which makes ai-powered safety systems for lorries and other commercial vehicles, to prioritise young pedestrians over old ones? He predicts ethically fraught lawsuits: consequentialist algorithms, after all, explicitly permit one harm as long as it is designed to avert a worse one.

Critics fret about “moral deskilling”: if computers increasingly make ethical calls, might people become less willing to make their own judgments? Roman Yampolskiy, an ai theoretician at the University of Louisville, argues that morality “is historically unstable, culturally variable, strategically manipulable, and often only retrospectively legible”. Unemployed coders take note: there seems to be no shortage of work for philosophers of ai. ■

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/06/24/why-big-ai-labs-are-hiring-so-many-philosophers

3. This commentary of yours also displays a profoundly ignorant understanding of how university governance works. It also displays something shocking: an inability to read a two-page article.

(a) As somebody has written on LinkedIn, nobody in western higher ed making these kinds of decisions about cuts really wants to do this. There are external pressures on university finances (in the case of the UK, perhaps also in the U.S. case, I don't know) and regulatory pressures (in the U.S.). That person in fact said very beautifully that trying to get into these stupid and reductive conversations about defending the humanities with administrators which you have raised is pointless, because it is preaching to the quire.

(b) The earlier point is justified if you actually read the article. Neither you nor the OP seem to have done. They have given a breakdown of who was asked to go. Mainly admin positions. So even what Harvard is actually doing does not seem to be supporting this absolutely stupid crap that has been published here.

Moderators, the fact that you didn't point this out in the case of the OP commentary (by use of a 'trollish' tag or at least a 'contested') is pretty surprising to me. If only the article had been posted without commentary, I would have understood. But commentary has been posted clearly pointing in the direction of an opinion.

just because they dont serve your capitalistic overlords doesnt mean they are useless. Education exits to expand you mind and make your life more meaningful through your own deepened understanding of the world. Not everything is a 'tool' to make money. You are free to choose whatever you want to do but its alarming that you think its your place to tell other people to follow in your footsteps and be soulless. its is alarming that the west is cutting down on arts program and its directly related to the economic and human rights decline they are experiencing due to late stage capitalism, the solution is to increase social security benefits so people want to live a full life not become corporate slaves due to poverty.

lets play you game

what is the legal basis (appropriate section or rule) for the BCI to intervene?

if this is allowed to stand, can BCI tomorrow stop enrolment of a law student who puts forward any politically inconvenient views?

what is the objective standard of determination of what hurts the public confidence in the profession?

no whatsapp forward please; the notice does not really illustrate any meaningful regulatory foundation, a few sections are thrown about and a case is cited, classic pray and spray, hoping something will stick

Guys, let's play devil's advocate for a second, shall we?

Sure this order seems pretty weird. But what about the argument that the persons who participated in this campaign are behaving in a way that undermines (or may have the potential to undermine) the confidence of the public in the profession of advocate? What is the substantive response to that? Because the satirical letter posted in reply doesn't address that point. People might be somewhat tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy, but in the spirit of free enquiry, we must not forget J.S. Mill who reminds us in On Liberty to know the argument of the opponent like the back of our hand. I assume that this undermining/potential of undermining confidence in the profession argument is the one they'll come up with, so it's important that it be responded to.

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-08-13/c8453c14/Letter_to_VC__NALSAR_University_of_Law__Hyderabad_and_the_Secretary__All_STBCs.pdf

Sub.: Seeking a factual report on the persons instrumental in drafting communication bearing No. BCI:D.5449/2026

Sir,

We have taken note, without the expected amusement, of a Notice purporting to emanate from a statutory regulator, in which an entire batch of law graduates has been collectively debarred, for the alleged crime of studying at an institution where, apparently, someone somewhere had an opinion. We knew that thought crime is to be punished in the current climate but being able to punish someone for their neighbours thought crime makes me covet your post (make me your padawan). This is regulatory stupidity dressed up in letterhead, and we salute the confidence it took to sign it.

In the quixotic spirit of the true factual position the Notice so solemnly claims to seek, we request the following, within three days:

1. a) The names and designations of members present, and the quorum achieved, when it was decided that natural justice is for other people.
2. b) The minutes recording the identity of the reliable sources, so we may assess whether they rank above or below rumour, astrology, vibes, and WhatsApp forwards as forms of admissible evidence. We must ensure that the zen Z virus has not infected the august regulator.
3. c) The legal opinion, if any exists, that permitted an entire batch to be punished for the alleged conduct of a few, a principle of jurisprudence we eagerly await making Bentham blush.
4. d) The name of the person principally instrumental in deciding that convocation guest lists now fall within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council, so that we have a reference to cite as an example of cooption, arbitrainess and immorality we are tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy.

We trust the Council, ever vigilant against dirty politics, shall take steps to stop the zen Z virus from spreading in it. Finally, we thank you for not using gen-AI, claude would stutter to satisfy you.

Receipt may kindly be acknowledged, capriciously, if that's more familiar.

So NLU students are dumb ? Indian students are lazy and less capable of hard work ? Or of solving complex legal problems ? Or we should expect less from our students - after all being a lawyer in India is meaningless and not like being a lawyer in the US? What do you actually mean to say ?

Honestly students that think like this shouldn’t go to NLUs. Go to some private law school and buy a degree if that’s all you want.

Learn to be observe things before writing rants online, you have much to see. I suggest cutting down on social media time and do some volunteer work/ family court internship to get out of the victim/ sensationalized mindset social media creates for kids these days (as if teens arent dramatic enough)

It was ridiculously blown out of proportion. One unarmed drunk 20 year old who could barely walk straight being a threat to a campus of hundreds of students and a dozen guards. It would have taken 4-5 guys from the BH to walk out and whack his ass, but then how would they sensationalise it

Third year here, the child is blowing things out of proportion. A senior got kicked out for some reason (idk exactly why) and he came back drunk, hopped over the wall at midnight and created a bit of ruckus and was again shown way out. This happened multiple times during the entire night. The GB is sweating in fear that the guy is a active security threat as if he'll kill anyone in his sight which is very ridiculous and blown out of proportion.

I agree that be it living conditions or acads, everything is already in ruins but nothing new. You may remove the post mod.

GC and M&A - reasonable hours unless its filing season, basically clearing the messes left after board decisions, can be boring but new kinds of stuff/ strange queries comes up all the time, clients feel entitled to your time, chill if you have a non-toxic team, makes you wonder how meaningful life must be in lit

Doesn't NALSAR actually have a management department (in a law school), and yet this law firm went to a business school?

You see, whichever way you spin this, it is a huge setback for all NLUs. This is time for a reality check instead of deflecting this. The downside of being a state university is getting starker by the day.

I can understand your frustration and angst. It is a triple whammy - on one hand, NLUs are desperate to be nationalized with no success in sight whatsoever; on the other hand, they are being sidelined over IIMs where legal leadership programmes are concerned; and as a final nail in their coffin, arts and humanities departments are being downsized even in the top institutions - no less than Harvard (when BA-LLB continue to be the flagship programmes for all NLUs).

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/8/11/fas-social-sciences-layoffs/

That's a nice way of giving a positive spin to a hugely negative development for the NLUs.

There are enough and more posts on this platform on how law graduates from NLUs should not be going to business schools for further studies, with reasons ranging from naive to atrocious.

The trigger for this has come from a law firm, and when it mattered, they went to a business school. NLUs are not on their radar when push comes to shove on leadership. NLUs may want to reflect on this, instead of being in denial and pretending to treat this as business as usual.

It is 100 percent the norm. Just compare salaries across teams and you will understand. They even offered signing bonuses (something thats unheard off) to several new joinees, while existing employees didnt even get their pay bands sorted. Pay is a complete black hole and the disparity is stark.

Indira Jaising and Menaka Guruswamy both charge the same? Isn't that a bit surprising, considering that one is a lot more experienced?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DcAm34MEnwZ/?img_index=1

What about offices that have a broader TMT practice combining TMT with IPR and emerging areas like AI, data/privacy, and technology law, essentially a TMT × IPR practice? Would you say the same concern about limited opportunities and lower-paying roles applies to those teams as well?

Facing this in NLUD. Few senior professors are adamant on giving less marks saying you have not written as I taught. A lot of them have been known to just fail or give like highest 60 out of 100 and feel proud that they are cutting marks and are strict. We all know how they teach and then pretending to be strict. I ve seen them ridicule few faculty who mark properly saying noone gets above 60 in my subject. You are giving her too much. I think we need to start questioning these relics.

So I'm an Advocate with around 4 years Litigation experience and over 2 years experience in government organizations. Which are some good law firms I can seek to join? Good as in with respect to people, pay, and good working hours. I know law firms have hectic working hours but I am looking for some which have reasonable hours. I'm looking for Mumbai location and Disputes/Litigation team role.

Guess what buddy, I happen to come from one of the states you mentioned, I didnt come back to a hot meal, I spent the last 5 years as a broke student living off shared rooms, meals from Dabba services or lunchbox/ Dabba garam/ box8.

There is a difference between privilege and not willing to get off your back, either get a top score in clat or work your ass off, or what? the best firms in the country will hire maybe 80 students of the 1.5-2 lakh law graduates per year will hire you off the back of you doing nothing either academically or just showing the initiative to work?

Why not just ask the government to pay you a couple crores a year for nothing while your at it.

Ask yourself: is this environment genuinely worth the cost?
You are, in effect, signing yourself up for a culture of burnout, characterised by:

1. Relentless 16–18-hour workdays, leaving little meaningful room for rest, recovery, or a life outside work;
2. Crushing and sustained stress, compounded by an artificially manufactured sense of urgency—often created by individuals whose management style is needlessly abrasive, boorish, and corrosive—which, over time, is bound to exact a serious toll on one’s mental well-being;
3. Virtually no meaningful scope for professional growth, particularly where certain seniors appear to believe that belittling, undermining, or diminishing their juniors is necessary to maintain authority and efficiency;
4. A persistent culture of public humiliation, reprimand, bullying and shaming, including instances where individuals are subjected to criticism or embarrassment despite having committed no discernible fault.

These are not isolated concerns. People have been leaving the team in significant numbers, and the pattern is difficult to ignore. The team may have initially succeeded in attracting exceptionally meritorious candidates, in part because of the reputation and stature associated with AS. However, if virtually all of those individuals have subsequently chosen to leave, one must ask what that attrition is signalling.

At some point, the question ceases to be whether the organisation can continue to attract talented people and becomes whether it can retain them.

One cannot indefinitely conceal or rationalise the underlying reality. A prestigious name may attract good candidates, but it cannot, by itself, compensate for an environment characterised by chronic overwork, humiliation, fear, and the absence of genuine professional development.

Take all of these factors into account before making your decision. The name attached to the team may open a door, but it is worth asking whether the environment on the other side of that door is one in which you can realistically thrive—or merely survive.