Going back to my previous comments - I agree that the CCI's suo moto mandate is not unprecedented. I'm just fundamentally against a setup which combines investigative and adjudicative powers with the same authority. I'm well aware of the CCPA, SEBI and other such frameworks. My skepticism applies to them equally. I referred to your summary procedure point because it came in response to my fairness arguments, to which my counter is that summary procedures do not compromise on these principles.

Secondly (and maybe I should've brought this up earlier), how is a suo moto mechanism helping with speed anyways? We've discussed extensively on the need for a faster mechanism without even establishing a causal link between the two.

Third - if we are concerned about institutional capture (I echo this concern), won't forcing the CCI to expand its wings further worsen things? My fear is that active suo moto enforcement could further embolden and institutionalise CCI's role in battling for these select few without even waiting for a formality complaint (as they did in cases like Amazon which surprise surprise eventually got reversed).

Fourth - The Meta decision actually reinforced my views against this dual setup. One casual look at the CCI order - the clear logical fallacies, lack of any independent analysis etc. would show the CCI just wanted to rubber stamp its pre-determined infringement mindset without even doing the most basic of work. This is probably why the first rule of natural justice requires no party to be a judge in their own cause. This becomes especially important for an authority which is expected to regulate its own procedure while adhering to natural justice, while being run by politically appointed members who are easy to replace, none of whom have judicial experience.

On state enforcement - I understand your point. However, I don't believe this has a correlation with the merits or demerits of a suo moto mandate. My criticisms would persist even if the Advocate Generals for Maharashtra or Karnataka decide to pursue active antitrust enforcement. Going back to my argument above, if an institution is indeed captured, how is vesting it with further discretionary powers an effective remedy?

Lastly, I completely agree with you on the CCI's abysmal state. And maybe I should clarify, I don't blame suo moto powers for where we are today. The reasons, like you mentioned. are largely the patchy fundamental structure, the lack of adherence to explicit constitutional directions and a perennial lack of funding over the years. I think we just disagree on our underlying fundamental principles. Best to just agree to disagree.

PS: Glad to have had a respectful engaging debate on this platform for a change!

In Mahindra (2019), the Delhi High Court established that a strict, water-tight separation of powers does not apply under the Indian Constitution, allowing specialised regulatory bodies like the CCI to blend administrative and quasi-judicial functions. It confirmed that the CCI must adhere to checks and balances, such as mandatory judicial members during hearings and appellate review. So why are we beating around the bush on Axon? Stick to our own constitutional jurisprudence.

I am new to all this – but when reading, I can see Indian courts sticking to the decision of the circuit court in Axon when it comes to it.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/2108762.html

To clarify, Axon served as the procedural gateway that enabled the conservative majority to later deploy theories like the unitary executive theory in cases like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (attacked delegated legislation), SEC v. Jarkesy (SEC had ALJs - ruled illegal), and West Virginia v. EPA (reduced scope of federal regulators). Axon was unianimous actually. Justice Elena Kagan, a stalwart defender of the administrative state, actually wrote the 9-0 majority opinion with Thomas concurring. The Axon decision was unanimous because it focused entirely on a procedural loophole, not the actual merits of the constitutional issue.

Axon had three issues:

(1) The clearance process used to determine whether the FTC or DOJ will review a merger violates due process,

(2) The fact that the FTC combines investigatory, prosecutorial, adjudicative, and appellate functions within a single agency violates due process, and

(3) The dual-layer of protection given to FTC ALJs violates the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.

So there is a lot of mish-mash in the preceding discussion here. Point 2 is different from Point 3. Connected in some way, meh, debatable. Quoting the judgement: "The Commission knows a good deal about competition policy, but nothing special about the separation of powers. For that reason, “agency adjudications are generally ill-suited to address structural constitutional challenges” - like those maintained here." So all Axon says is that agencies lack the specific expertise to decide structural constitutional questions like the separation of powers.

Coming to India, Axon definitely influenced litigation in India, but some of Axon's questions have been posed even before Axon in India though Axon itself rising from the merger control side. In India, most of the cases are on the enforcement side.

(1) Meta (Facebook) & WhatsApp - Meta argued that because the privacy policy was already scrutinized by the Supreme Court and High Courts under data privacy laws, the CCI had no business launching a simultaneous suo motu antitrust probe. Predates Axon in the SCOTUS.

(2) Global Fragrance & Ingredient Manufacturers - IFF moved the Delhi High Court to halt the probe, asserting that procedural overreach by the Director General (DG) and the CCI violated basic tenets of natural justice. Post-Axon in the SCOTUS. The only one here.

(3) JioStar (Formerly Star India) - JioStar bypassed the agency's primary process and appealed directly to the High Courts using Bharti Airtel Judgment on sectoral regulator precedence. Predates Axon in the SCOTUS.

(4) Auto Parts Case - Effectively expanded a single consumer complaint into a sweeping suo motu-style industry-wide probe, penalising 14 car manufacturers. Predates Axon in the SCOTUS.

(5) Amazon and Flipkart Sellers - An alliance of associated sellers filed 24 separate writ petitions across multiple state High Courts stalling any progress in the cases. Half of it predates Axon in the SCOTUS. Another batch is after Axon.

So it's not like something new was dramatically found when Axon came out in SCOTUS. It's just that parties decided to target the weakness in the regulatory state more head-on using writ jurisdiction. The CCI had long lived with it. European law allowed for it. American ideas of separation of powers did not. Now India has become a test case. The CCI hit by writs across the board has suffered.

Touched a nerve, have I, member of BJP IT Team!? Well, as somebody who should be a mate of yours in Britain, the Israel supporter Davis Lewin (of the Henry Jackson Society), might have said (based on his sarcasm at the Cambridge Union when addressing his opponents whom he viewed as anti-Jewish), "Well isn't it a pleasure to meet you!?".

I may not know a lot about Indian politics, but what I do know is that this guy is a darling of the right wing and called young people in India struggling for jobs and a basic standard of living a name I will never use. He also dismissed accusations of police brutality without any form of due process. That's all that any person needs to know. Plus, he got some thugs-turned-gentlemen that work at our high commission here and have therefore adopted a veneer of respectability to bully the event organisers at my uni into pre-selecting (in advance) only certain students to answer questions after his speech, rather than ensuring that a democratic, random selection of students who raised their hands was done. Even if I don't know a shit load about Indian politics, I know enough Orwell to remember what he says about keeping on the right side of the party line.

Also, when did I say that it's an offence for people I don't like to "exist in the world"? Idiot rich kid I may be (I dispute that characterisation by the way), but I at least understand basic English. Please learn to read. Go back to your school, do pranam to your teachers, ask for forgiveness for wasting their time and admit to them that you weren't paying attention when they were teaching basic reading, then ask them to please repeat the lessons for you. Existing in the world doesn't mean being legitimised and lorded by educational institutions. It literally means what it says on the tin: going about your life freely, expressing your views without fear of state reprisal, associating with whom you will, etc. If he comes along and speaks at some student event at the uni, it's their problem. They want to listen to bad ideas, I don't care. But this is the institution giving him a stamp of approval by calling him to their graduation ceremony. Totally different. Also, when did I say I liked any other CJI at all? You're doing a remarkable level of extrapolation. Sign of a TLC education in India? Reliable sources indicate NLU graduates wouldn't make such breathtaking logical mistakes. If he has the right to his free speech, then so do I and all the NALSAR students protesting against him.

Please prove, with facts, citations, statistics and evidence, what this guy has done to further the rule of law in India and I'll consider taking back what I said.

Seriously? These students wont even pick their garbage in class and now showing tantrums here. Who cares who gives you a degree elitist groups? You shame people from non-nlus and then act big by not eating half a meal and protesting for elite things.

Give us a break! First stop bunking classes; cheating in exams; fighting with teachers for reducing syllabus (lol); plagiarising projects; AI written projects; begging for marks to pass; insulting non-nlus; using contacts for internships where your contacts trump meritorius students (uncle syndrome learnt); asking for lineint marking; failing because of substance abuse; getting debarred..... anything but not reading and studying. Meh!

From what is reported.

PartnerPracticeNew firmExit reportedAshwin SapraPharmaTrilegalJan. 2026Kapil AroraDisputesAZB & Partners Apr. 2026Ajay SawhneyDisputesAZB & Partners Apr. 2026Aditi MisraProjects / InfrastructureAZB & PartnersApr. 2026Bhupendra VermaProjects / InfrastructureAZB & PartnersApr. 2026Rachika SahayEnergy / InfrastructureAZB & PartnersApr. 2026Anchal DhirCorporate / M&A / PEAnagram PartnersApr. 2026Shubham RastogiCorporate / M&A / PEAnagram PartnersApr. 2026Faraz Alam SagarDisputes / White CollarCMS INDUSLAWApr. 2026Shaneen ParikhInternational ArbitrationSAMAug. 2026Abhilash PillaiReal EstateTrilegal May 2026Ravindra BandhakaviM&A / PEResigned; reportedly in talks with SAMJul. 2026Amarta RoyCorporate / PEResigned; reportedly in talks with SAMJul. 2026Poornima SinghPE / InvestmentsResigned; reportedly in talks with SAMJul. 2026Srabanee GhoshPE / InvestmentsResigned; reportedly in talks with SAMJul. 2026

Interesting read, given the context here

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/silent-exit-why-good-employees-leave-before-resign-pradeep-hatgaonkar-6vcdc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

This is the BS that comes from within, and classic case of structural weakness worth attacking before any individual point. The four arguments contradict each other. Point 1 says the brand carries the work (people don’t matter). Point 4 says the departing people didn’t bill much (people matter, and these ones underperformed). Point 2 says people leave freely (people matter enough to need explaining). Three incompatible theories of why the exits are irrelevant. Someone confident in any one of them wouldn’t need the other two !!!

1. “Biggest by miles / clients want the seal of approval” -Scale is a lagging indicator, it measures brand equity built over decades not current bench strength. What the claim actually concedes, if clients buy CAM for regulatory cover rather than better advice, that’s an argument about risk-shifting, not quality. Brand cover is exactly the thing that erodes when the named partners who anchored client trust leave. The “cleaning up after tier 1 firms” line is unfalsifiable anecdote, every firm says it about every other firm.

2. “Never forces people to stay” -This answers a question nobody asked. The issue isn’t whether exit is permitted, it’s why so many are choosing it. Framed properly, it’s an admission, if departures are genuinely unconstrained, then attrition is pure revealed preference. The cleanest possible signal that something is wrong. Worth separating “free to leave” from “free to leave without friction” ...... notice periods, garden leave, non-solicits, withheld settlements blah blah, the list can be endless... etc etc are all testable, and the answer is rarely as clean as the slogan.

3. “No further partners are leaving. Stop spreading lies.” - An unverifiable negative about the future, asserted with certainty by someone who structurally cannot know it, resignations are confidential until they aren’t. It’s also the claim most likely to be falsified within a quarter, which makes it a credibility hostage. Since last year end, it was all fine, then it all started falling like a pack of cards. The shift to name calling where evidence should be is itself the tell.

4. “They weren’t billing much anyway” - The market disagrees, competitors (AZB, SAM, KCO, Trilegal, S&R, Anagram etc) hired them, presumably not at a discount. Billing credit is also allocated by origination systems the firm controls, so it’s a circular metric. And “enough competent partners to pick up the slack” concedes there is slack. Strategically, this is the weakest point to make publicly, disparaging departed colleagues is precisely the behaviour that makes the people still inside start taking recruiter calls .......

The strongest overall move, everything here is unverifiable assertion (private financials, anonymous poster), so don’t fight on facts you can’t source. Fight on internal coherence and on the one thing the post itself concedes, that people who are free to leave ARE LEAVING !

Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Happy Founder's Day too !

Greetings,

Looking to intern with and possibly get hired into teams that specialise in PE/VC. I want to make sure that I'm able to maximise this opportunity to learn the most I can from the best teams/partners out there.

Please help a fellow transactions enthusiast out and drop the names of Firms / Partners / Counsels / PAs who are best at what they do – Both Tier 1 and Boutiques with Tier 1 work.

Thank You!

Hi,

I have secured an internship with SAM Delhi. I had applied for the M&A, PE/VC and GC areas. However, my acceptance letter did not specify which practice area/team I'll be working with. Upon inquiry, I was told that I will be allotted the practice area based on my preference on my date of joining – although I am a bit sceptical of this. Anyone who has interned recently, have you had a similar experience? Were you allotted a team in your preferred area at the end?

They do. BLC follows a rigirous hiring structure. Post your assessment or during your assessment, you will undergo three rounds of interviews. First and Second rounds are usually the difficult ones, with the third one being taken by the Partner who is going to recruit you (that will mostly be to see if you are a good cultural fit or not). It is a difficult and long process but a rather rewarding one. All the best!

What happened inside is fiercely contested. She said he assaulted her, on both nights. He said it was drunken banter that went nowhere. From those two minutes, and those two storeys, have flowed thirteen years of litigation, two irreconcilable stories, and now two irreconcilable judgments.

…

If the central physical claim of a witness is disproved by the physics of the scene, a court that still convicts on her sole word owes us a demonstration, not an assertion, of why the contradiction does not matter. …

Two minutes in a lift. Two storeys of a hotel. Two stories, hers and his, each told with conviction, each carrying a life within it. One court found the first story unproved. Another found it proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the same record. That divergence is not an embarrassment to the system. It is the reason the system builds in a final, full appeal. Let that appeal be heard. Let the analysis be dispassionate. And until then, let the rest of us have the humility to say the three hardest words in public life: we don’t know.

https://x.com/sanjayuvacha/status/2087046071612801217

A few of us thought a quick game of catch on DHC's lawn couldn't possibly go wrong. Bold assumption, in hindsight.

The first throw drifted a little high and landed, with what can only be described as remarkable precision, directly on a Senior Advocate. Miraculously, he wasn't hurt and, ever the good sport, picked up the ball and lobbed it back. His return throw, powered by decades of seniority and noticeably fewer decades of hand-eye coordination, veered off and landed on... another Senior Advocate. Small lawn. Suspiciously large odds.

This one was not amused. Visibly wounded by the sheer audacity of junior advocates enjoying themselves on DHC's grass, he snatched up the ball and launched it in fury, in principle, who's to say at one of my friends, who ducked just in time. The ball carried on and found yet another advocate.

Senior. Obviously.

By now a small crowd had gathered, drawn by the commotion and, one assumes, by nothing better to bill for at that hour. As everyone demanded to know what on earth was going on, it emerged that almost the entire crowd shared the same designation. A gathering convened to complain about a ball game had, without anyone quite intending it, turned into something resembling a Full Court reference.

They're still deciding what to do about us. Personally, I think the real agenda item should be how anyone is expected to stand on that lawn without hitting a Senior Advocate.

https://inews.co.uk/news/education/17-top-universities-set-accept-students-lower-grades-4685409?srsltid=AfmBOopSy2R0ShJv3t90tf0Ks8q9Xzx9qXX4C_JKi5BW8UhV0ArIXhMw

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/universities-student-lower-grades-foreign-8fqmbs9q7

Top UK universities in UK have lowered their entry standards. Those who go to UK are the ones not good enough for India, and employers know this. The same applies to Canada, Australia, and Germany.

First JLS for AI last year with 15CR grant, now IIMA for GCs this year for how much? Does anyone know but won’t pay his lawyers ! Thoughts?

https://www.barandbench.com/news/corporate/cyril-shroff-and-iim-ahmedabad-co-found-cyril-shroff-iima-gc-leadership-academy

Professors at a premier NLU have mentioned to students that a faculty colleague of theirs [name redacted] has received full-funding to pursue their doctoral studies at UCL. The faculty themselves are a batch-rank holder of another rising premier NLU and obtained a first-class LLM from world's leading university in UK. It is absolutely amazing to see what young leadership at the helm of old NLUs can create. Someday, majority of NLU grads teaching in India could be holders of foreign LLMs or PhDs!

2023 grad here, is it possible to go from litigation (delhi) to NDA? I recently read about their "academy" and it looks pretty interesting, like for upskilling / future-proofing (whatever that means lately). I have worked on my fair share of commercial and tech matters; is it possible to make the switch ? If yes, then how? help a sister out please.

I wanna know what are some good chambers in Delhi for a wide range of work, but mostly white collar crime/ IBC work etc. Small offices would do, but shall be paying at least 40k to freshers and also some place which might have reasonable leaving time coz being a girl it's practically hard to stay back until 11pm or later in Delhi.