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?
Campus isn't small per se, from.omw end to the other is about a km. It's just that much of the campus is under construction.
It would negatively impact your chances of number of students are high for placement.
You have so much to study in law school that it does take the life out of you. You can reach areas like MG Road in about 40 minutes by metro, but you'll not have time to do stuff.
SC ST
OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
EWS
Domicile
Foreign national
NRI
PWD
J&K
North East
Armed Forces
Women
Transgender
https://youtu.be/4P4Iee1WaAc?si=T7HWR_uRQWts9YnC
can you please suggest me any good resources especially for the part B
CNLU peeps, please give us the tea!!
my aim is corporate law or in-house counsel
please tell me how are the current students doing and how will it be in future also
thanks for the help
If any junior is facing issues, please privately bring it up with the partners and ask that you not be outed to the team for bringing concerns. From what I know, the KCO partners are decent enough to give you that benefit. This advice should also work in every other competition practice, expect may be at ▮▮▮. Also not all partners are made equal, use your brains before approaching.
In your discussion, bring specific examples which you think were wrong and should not have happened or what you think can happen better. Targeted feedback will help the partners address issues. If you are not comfortable bringing it up with the partners in general and feel you will be targeted, speak with someone you trust. In KCO you can consider speaking to Anshuman one-on-one. Of what I know of Anshuman, he is a super standup guy. Every firm have a few decent guys who would be willing to help you. Other examples being Harman in SAM, Bharat / Toshit in AZB, Dhruv / Vijay in CAM, etc.
No workplace is good or bad in perpetuity. This KCO team is quite small compared to its peers and they have a tremendous amount of work. In these circumstances, people tend to behave badly, but that is no excuse. Bring issues up, so solutions can be brought forward.
Don't expect people / seniors to notice issues that are affecting you on their own, that never happens in any workplace. Even if you think toxicity is apparent, it may be apparent to you but not to others. Everyone, including partners, is busy with their own set of issues and toxicity.
Once you have brought forward an issue, give a few months before you expect improvements. Nothing changes overnight. Even for seniors, it takes a lot of time to make folks break / change habit. Even where partners need to change, they need time to break habits - even when they are entirely aware that change is needed. Change is hard.
When you bring issues, it is entirely possible that partners wont agree to your assessment of the situation. What you feel as toxicity or wrong, may not be the case. As juniors, you may not have enough experience or context to assess all behavior. Most people think they are victims in a situation, but often that is not the case. People always tend to look at their agony through rose tinted glasses. If you bring an issue with a partner, please keep an open mind. If may very well be possible that the issue lies with you or with you and the third person.
Finally, you may not just be a fit in a team. Don't be afraid to leave and go elsewhere. Not all workplaces are meant for everyone.
Can someone please tell me what are my chances in those teams in those Firms, and what kind of questions I can expect in the interview?
Chapter 2: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/237709#comment-237709
Chapter 3: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/238910-chapter-3-the-resistance
I hope you don't plan to have children or that you get a little more mature before you do. No one is saying he shouldn't be accountable. Just that accountability can come with compassion. It has nothing to do with wealth. If you think that people baying for his blood wouldn't bay for a poorer young man to be hanged, you are very wrong. The parents' emotions are understandable but in the long run they are harmful to their own healing: https://www.ldsliving.com/just-let-go-one-lds-mans-story-of-tragedy-and-the-power-of-forgiveness/s/71058 . And there is a good reason that these emotions do not drive justice.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/bill-gates-noam-chomsky-seen-in-fresh-pics-from-epsteins-estate-9843279/amp/1
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/22/noam-chomsky-jeffrey-epstein-ties-emails
Most likely you will just a rap on the knuckles and it will be done. If in case the firm comes down harder than that, then just know that you are in a workplace that is really not a fair one (especially considering you are an A0 and nobody checked your work).
Don’t fret. Be kind to yourself. You will be fine.
Though the wise man was an A0, chill!
1. Is this how VCs of all govt universities behave in India? Suck up to politicians in such a cringe manner?
2. Are certain NLU VCs the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riPbR0p-GNMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YFwfhjayEc
There’ll be many more mistakes you commit in future so learn to deal with them and figure a way out. So long as it can be fixed, it’s recoverable.
2. Very Chill work culture, mainly researching related to Arbitration and Construction Laws.
3. He loves to interact with interns, made them part of regular client meetings, good exposure.
4. He'll take you along to witness Arbitration Proceedings as well.
5. Not so much to learn, but definitely a good place to gain exposure and experience how broad law actually is, specially in your initial years.
(I have interned during summer 2023).
When did you get it?
2. Yes
3. NUJS and then NLUJ
Let’s analyse this purported “loss” without jingoism and with actual substance.
Where, precisely, did our speakers fall short—and how did those failures lead to a loss of votes?
also, what month are you getting because i have a callback scheduled in SAM
If you are looking for In-House experience then I am sorry to say but you have no choice but to relocated to cities like Mumbai/Calcutta as majority of these companies have their headquarters or Indian Offices in these states.
TBH the scope of maritime law in India is quite limited. Its a very niche area and majority of the people who i have worked with in the field who have done LLM have either joined in-house as a legal claim adjuster or something on that path with very shitty payment.
would really appreciate any responses.
Thanks
I am a student of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, and I am actively seeking an internship for the period January to March 2026 (or any month in between).
I have been applying relentlessly, sending emails, filling application forms, and following up—but unfortunately, I have received no responses so far. As a first-generation law student with no professional contacts, the process has been exhausting and disheartening. It becomes even harder when I see students from much earlier years securing internships at top law firms, while I continue applying without any feedback despite genuine effort and commitment.
If anyone here can guide, refer, or help in any way, I would be extremely grateful. I am keen to learn, work hard, and prove my capability.
Kindly reach out to me at ranjanchoudhary@outlook.com if you can help or point me in the right direction.
Thank you for reading and for any support.
No debate = No loss - seems like you dont have basic reasoning skills, go and improve your iq.
With a rank of that sort, you would unfortunately not land any NLU if you belong to the general category, which is a good thing if you ask me. It is better to stay out of the picture completely than to end up in a T-3 NLU, because the struggle there is just as bad.
You are right about the private law school scenario. There are a few who manage to get into t-1s even from a uni like Christ, but they are rare, and usually have some backing to themselves. And you shouldn't tread upon a journey based on exceptions. Stick to the norms.
What you should do next? Well, what's happened has happened so definitely don't go to any random unheard of law school right now. First, sit down with yourself and figure out if law is truly what you want to do. Even if you do graduate from a T-1 NLU, law will suck the life out of you. If you don't have a godfather, you will live under the pressure to land a corp job to recoup the amount you've invested in your education. And corp jobs, well, are mundane and exhausting to say the least. They are nothing like the day to day to court practice you see and aspire. Not saying that you can't go ahead practising in courts, but the probability of that happening, at least at the start of your career, is quite low. Oh, and it's a lot more tiring too lol.
Tbf, most corp jobs too, which I believe would be your only alternative since you don't sound like someone who wishes to go ahead with science, will drain you just as much. When you would have thought all of this out, come out with a firm decision. And then, if you still choose to go ahead with law, take another shot at CLAT. Put in the hours, working on your comprehension, reading speed, countless mocks and all of it. It's okay if you fail again. But give it a good shot. Ultimately, sooner or later, you'll find what is meant for you.
Everyone likes tea at the end of the day!
https://thewire.in/article/business/sandesara-brothers-sterling-biotech-gujarat-albania-nigeria/amp
I have gotten an internship with MCM law and Denton Links legal, any idea on the work culture, growth, pay etc?
The Attorney General, a tall, sharp-featured man named Rakesh Malhotra, rose to address the bench. He cleared his throat, the sound echoing unnaturally loud in the hushed hall.
“Your Lordships, the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2035, is not an act of destruction but of restoration. The Parliament, in its sovereign wisdom, has merely exercised the plenary power under Article 368. The so-called ‘basic structure’ doctrine was never part of the original text. It was a judicial invention—a noble one in its time, perhaps—but one that has outlived its utility. The 13-judge bench in 2035 correctly held that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of the Constitution. No court can bind future generations with an eternal straitjacket.”
Thakur interrupted, voice low but cutting. “Mr. Attorney General, are you suggesting that Parliament can tomorrow declare the Preamble to be a mere poem, strip away every fundamental right, and proclaim a monarchy? Where is the limit?”
Malhotra smiled thinly. “Your Lordship, the limit is the people themselves. They elect the Parliament. If the people disapprove, they will vote it out. That is the only true democracy.”
Panicker leaned forward, spectacles glinting. “And if the people are fed propaganda, if the media is muzzled, if dissent is branded sedition? Then what? You ask us to trust the very institution that just removed ‘democratic’ from the Preamble?”
A ripple of murmurs from the bar. Malhotra’s smile vanished. “The learned senior counsel is assuming mala fides. The amendment reflects the will of the majority. It restores Bharat to its civilizational roots—cow protection as a fundamental right, Hindi as the national language, Sanskrit as its soul. These are not impositions; they are corrections.”
Desai spoke next, his voice slow and deliberate. “But the removal of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’—the deletion of the right to free exercise of religion—how do you justify that? Are we now to have a state religion by default?”
Malhotra’s tone sharpened. “The Constitution never mandated secularism as a rigid principle. It was an addition in 1976. We have merely returned to the original vision. And as for religion, the amendment does not prohibit faith; it removes the right to proselytise and convert, which has caused social discord. Surely Your Lordships cannot deny the chaos caused by unchecked missionary activity?”
Manohar, usually quiet, now spoke with quiet force. “The right to propagate religion is part of Article 25. You cannot delete it and claim it is mere ‘restoration’. This is rewriting the text to suit one ideology. If this amendment stands, tomorrow another Parliament can reinstate ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’—or delete ‘sovereign’ and ‘republic’. Then what? The Constitution becomes a revolving door.”
The Attorney General paused, glancing toward the back of the courtroom where a small group of government officials sat, including the Law Minister’s aide. He took a breath. “Your Lordships, the power to amend is unlimited. The people’s representatives have spoken. To strike this down would be to impose judicial supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty—a dangerous precedent.”
Thakur’s eyes narrowed. “Parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute. It is sovereignty under the Constitution. The people did not give Parliament the power to destroy the Constitution itself. Kesavananda Bharati held that the basic structure is beyond amendment. You overruled it in a bench that was constituted… unusually. We are here to examine whether that overruling was itself constitutional.”
Malhotra opened his mouth, but Thakur raised a hand. “We have heard you. We will hear the petitioners now.”
The senior counsel for the petitioners, an elderly woman with silver hair and a voice like steel, rose. Her name was Meera Iyer, once a law minister herself, now a fierce defender of the old order.
“Your Lordships, this is not about religion or language or cows. This is about power. The amendment removes the word ‘democratic’ from the Preamble. It deletes ‘personal liberty’ from Article 21. It allows Emergency on grounds of ‘internal disturbance’ or ‘threat to public order’—words vague enough to cover any protest, any tweet, any whisper of dissent. If this stands, the Constitution becomes a husk. The basic structure doctrine was not an invention; it was the court’s answer to the question: can a majority tomorrow vote to end democracy itself? The answer must be no. Otherwise, the Constitution is dead.”
She paused, letting the words sink in. “The 2035 judgment was procured by the very man who now sits in Rashtrapati Bhavan. A Chief Justice who became Acting President after two suspicious deaths, who then presided over a bench that erased the only safeguard against majoritarian tyranny. If Your Lordships uphold this, you will not just validate the amendment—you will validate the coup that enabled it.”
The courtroom was silent. Even the fans seemed to stop whirring.
Thakur looked at his brother judges. Some nodded imperceptibly. Others stared ahead, faces unreadable.
“We will reserve judgment,” he said finally. “The court will pronounce its verdict in due course. But let me be clear: we will not flinch from our duty. The Constitution is not a toy to be rewritten at whim. It is the soul of this nation. And we will protect it.”
As the judges rose, the bar erupted in murmurs. Outside the courtroom, television cameras waited like vultures. Reporters surged forward.
In the corridor, Ramalingam’s aide whispered into his phone. “Sir, the bench looks divided. But Thakur is leading hard. We may lose.”
At the other end, in Rashtrapati Bhavan, Ramalingam stubbed out his cigarette. His voice was calm, almost serene.
“Then we do what we must. Prepare the papers for impeachment. And tell Sashikala… it’s time to move to the next phase.”
The sun dipped behind the dome of the Supreme Court. Shadows lengthened across the lawns. Somewhere, a clerk was already typing the first draft of the judgment.
The confrontation had begun. The verdict would decide everything.
1. I heard online that the 320 batch strength leads to a bunch of diffrerent professors teaching the same subject to students, and because of subjectivity of grading, it can lead to skewed batch rankings. Do you think tat would be a problem?
2. the campus is only 23 acres and honestly thats feels tiny, when you were on campus did you feel like it was cramped or small?
3. with the addition of the 3 year llb course, with circa 400 students sitting for placements when im in my 4/5th year, how would that change my chances of being placed at a t1 firm
4. They had trimesters back when you were studying there too, but im hearing that nobody has time for anything else on campus and people are literally failing subjects and being held back because of how hard it is, is that something i need to be concered about
And the what aboutism in this thread is nuts. Nls has drunk students nujs has drunk students Oxbridge has drunk students. Are you kidding me ? Do you know how hard those students are made to work ? How little time most of them have to become drunkards ? Most NLS Oxbridge students may have a drink socially but they aren’t spending hours everyday getting drunk. The university pushes rigor enough that they have to study or fail. And those universities aren’t facing the rates of deaths, crime, assault, accident that JGLS faces. Take some damn responsibility for yourselves before you berate grieving parents for that same sin.
You can make this argument if parents are made aware about the situation they’re sending their children into. You cannot make it when the university works to actively deceive and hide problems on their campus.
Do I think there’s a parenting problem with most of these kids ? Yes I do. I don’t think their parents are being watchful enough and I think their parents try to get them out of trouble rather than teach them consequences of actions too much. But that does not mean parents are working with perfect information here. The day Jgls tells parents the truth about their institution - that’s the day you can blame parents for making bad choices.