We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Also, where is this theory coming from that certain very senior people were responsible for the case? In most cases, it is the junior lawyers, who do the heavy lifting and seniors who take the credit.
Yes, maybe other lawyers were involved but very credible sources have acknowledged them as akin to Player of the Match. Their role was equivalent to the innings that Sanju Samson played yesterday.
The person who posted the comment is very obviously a Left supporter. But otherwise he or she was spot on that MG would be rewarded with an RS ticket for her outburst.
Everyone should open a law firm and they'll become like SAM/CAM surely.
Fine if you want to cancel right-wing speakers, but at least ask your Didi to give the college some money???
Baad me to 20 L per hearing milega hi na
I don't want to shade anyone, just interested in what other folks think about it and how common this is.
Rule no. 2 - even if you are, don't go for M&A
Rule no. 3 - even if you are, don't be prepared well, so you could be fired
Rule no. 4 - back to rule no. 1
Rule no. 5 - in case you don't follow any of these, you'll suffer
Surely I have mailed 100 law firms/partners, followed-up and got rude replies from them. But out of 100 at least 4-5 reply positively and you only need 1 opportunity.
Grab that one and convert it into something solid. Having said that, don't overdo it, otherwise you may get yourself shadow banned from the partner/firm.
1. DO NOT, I repeat do not think of doing 5 year law at all, it will be a career suicide at your age.
2. If you consider pursuing three year llb, either go for Top colleges like NLS and SLS or consider foreign colleges, sub par three year colleges like Jindal and GLC won't get you anywehre since 3 year LLB is on much lower footing as compared to 5 year law anyway, if you do not have very good connections which can get
3. Company Secretary course will take anywhere from 3-5 years of your life from this point if you start now, excluding the mandatory traineeship, and it not even a sureity that you will clear the exam in the first go.
Real Advice -
being in the profession for 3-ish years I can safely tell you this profession is not here for stay. 5-10 years down the line, almost all work would be automated and AI will eat up most law firm and in-house jobs, therefore having a strong passion itself would not suffice for you to succeed . If you want to have a stable trajectory,either you will have to pivot in some very niche field like AI/fintech, capital markets or legal marketing, or might as well look for alternative career options like finance, tech or marketing.
He termed this as a knee jerk choice by Mamata, because Menaka hasn’t really been very successful defending the TMC. She has lost in the Cal HC, SC etc repeatedly.
He doesn’t say it openly, but there is a veiled insinuation that Menaka’s outburst against Raju and the virality of the video was not as spontaneous as it looked.
Your solution for ending reservation like they're an oppressive regime is to fundamentally change our society to a point where we'd exceed any civilization to have ever exceeded but then you just stop that logic at the first step by saying
"Financial need based reservation" but on the other hand you wanna hold every right wing belief known to man too, to reach income based reservation we'd have to shed ourselves of any right wing beliefs and essentially become China, that's a fair sacrifice, you can't lick your honey too
So now, tell me my dear learned friend would you like advocating for full on communism? Well you have already done that anyways
On a side note I once came across this post on reddit(like 2 months ago) where a guy posted a photo of a girl absolutely failed by the society, begging, disabled, malnourished, no hope, staring into the cold night sky alone.
He captioned "these are the people that should get reservation"
if that's the first thing that comes to your mind after seeing someone like that instead of a speck of empathy and you even feel like posting that thought then even God himself can't pull you out of this neoliberal propaganda
As regards reservations just on the basis of gender and economic grounds, are you sure the entitled class will not cry wolf again with an indulgent judiciary ever willing to step in to do complete (mockery of) justice?
Is the 35 hour period strictly followed or you guys also slog like other lawyers working in office?
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.
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
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.
I am from a lower tier nlu going to intern with Indus' Disputes Team. Can anyone shed some light on their hiring prospects in Disputes Team for Delhi Office and their internship pattern (callback & assesment)
Cheers.
No comparison with NLSIU
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
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.
We need reservation purely on the basis of gender and economic status — nothing eise. Give seats to poor women. That’ll uplift India.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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?
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.
– Sincerely, NLS student
hearing BO 2027 in general has been sluggish in getting PPOs as of now
https://youtube.com/watch?v=utpELrpndc4&pp
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