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

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.

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.(...)

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Completed LL.M. from RRU School of Integrated Coastal and Maritime Security Studies.

Best Part: University of Ministry of Home Affairs, Excellent connect with government, ports and shipping sector and international maritime organizations. VC-RRU is member of UN International Law Commission and an Authority in Law of the Sea.

Faculty (Dr P Paleri, School Director Mr Sushil Goswami, Ms Tanisha and Mr Ankur Sharma are superb in Law of the Sea) Shri Yash Vardhan is one of the best teacher in Public International Law in school.

During course additional certification to LL.M. Batch (PFSO etc)

Gap (depends on interest) is Less focus on Commercial Maritime Law, courses are based on Law of the Sea, International Law, Post Security etc.

GMU is average and unable to have its campus since 5/6 years. Limited faculty relatively new passouts with no experince in maritime law. NLU Odisha is good in terms of its centre activities in commercial maritime law. Not seen anything in Maritime law in GNLU. I beleive no faculty in this area in GNLU now. I attended international maritime academy in 2012 with field exposure but not seen any new programme. That academy was one of the best i attended in india in LOS and security with faculty from US, Japan, ICJ and Africa. Faculty Mr. Goswami who conducted that academy regularly in gnlu left GNLU and started new school in maritime law in GOI-MHA University RRU. Contact Mr. Goswami through google.

Hi everyone, so I want you guys to break my bubble in a kind way possible. So, a little background about me, I'm a law school graduate batch of 2020-2025, from T2 Private Law College in India. So my internships are a mix of Litigation and Corporate, but the thing is, none of them are famous or high-end firms/companies; all are boutique and small-sized law firms. I graduated this June, and I have been trying for jobs since then. I ended up in a law firm (litigation) that barely paid, and the environment was pretty toxic. I couldn't cope. So I left that firm(August and September) for the past two months, and I am unemployed. The city I live in and the top-most law firm here is only CAM and Luthra and Luthra. So the question is, a first-gen lawyer who has no contacts whatsoever, can they land in a T1 firm? If yes, then please advise or opinios.

You apply at Vaish, not directly with him. He still sits in Vaish office.

Even if you do get an internship, chances of you actually meeting him/working with him are slim to none. You'll have to sit in the intern basement all day, waiting for someone to call and allot work.

You have to be extremely proactive for SAs/PAs to actually recognize you and allot work to you

The ongoing debate around discipline at GNLU exposes a much deeper malaise than simply whether students attend classes or play games late at night. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what a university is supposed to be. When administrative overreach begins to resemble surveillance, and when policies are implemented without transparency or accountability, it ceases to be about discipline and becomes a question of institutional ethics.

To begin with, the idea that the administration has the right to monitor students’ personal lives whether they play games at midnight, watch movies, or choose how to unwind, is profoundly misplaced. GNLU is not a school. It is a residential university where students spend half a decade of their lives transitioning into adulthood. Expecting them to adhere to hostel curfews and moral policing reminiscent of high school undermines the entire ethos of higher education. Students here come from diverse cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. They do not need to be parented by the administration.

If we are to talk about discipline, then integrity and fairness must cut both ways. This past semester saw an unprecedented number of students, sometimes 60 to 70 per subject, barred from writing exams due to alleged attendance shortages. Many of these restrictions were based on rules that were either unwritten or applied inconsistently. Several faculty members mark students subjectively, reward personal favourites, or penalise those who express dissent. In some cases, professors who lack expertise in the assigned subject are made to teach it anyway, leading to poor engagement and absenteeism. In contrast, good teachers never struggle with attendance; their classes are naturally full because they teach with sincerity and respect.

The administration’s role should be to create an environment where students want to learn, not one where they are coerced through fear or punishment. When university leadership cannot even issue a clear, confident statement assuring 24-hour medical facilities, because there are none, it has no moral ground to preach discipline. Ironically, even as it fails on such essentials, the same administration takes pride in record placement numbers. But should the purpose of an entire legal education be reduced to placements alone? The real measure of an institution is how it treats all its students, not just the few who secure corporate jobs or pre-placement offers.

The recent hostel controversy is another example of misplaced priorities. The Chief Faculty Warden’s threat to “break locks” on rooms for the purpose of “asset numbering” is not just unnecessarily aggressive, it reveals a complete lack of trust between the administration and the student body. Many students have already reported missing items, broken belongings, and trashed rooms after handing over keys in previous semesters. The problem is not the request for keys, it is the tone of threat and the absence of accountability. An administration that raids hostels at the smallest inconvenience, encourages snitches, and violates privacy cannot hope to foster mutual respect.

Equally troubling is the dismissive attitude toward mental health. To suggest that stress or burnout is an “excuse” is both ignorant and cruel. Students today face enormous pressure, academic performance, internships, placements, and the growing uncertainty of the job market. For many, extracurricular activities like sports, cultural events, or even late-night recreation are essential outlets for mental balance. Yet, instead of recognising this reality, the administration has repeatedly responded with threats, event cancellations, and disciplinary notices.

Ultimately, discipline without empathy is tyranny. A law university should model fairness, justice, and dialogue. The very values it claims to teach. What GNLU needs is not more surveillance, but more trust, not stricter punishments, but more transparency, more regulation that helps students, not fear, but genuine engagement between students and faculty. If the administration expects respect, it must first show it.

Until then, no amount of curfews, lock-breaking threats, or attendance crackdowns will restore the university’s credibility. The students of GNLU are not demanding anarchy, they are demanding dignity, fairness, and the right to live as adults within a university that claims to produce future lawyers, not obedient schoolchildren.

Originalism must stay, it is what the makers intended you cannot just twist the arguments of those illustrative esteemed minds into whatever you see fit. Furthermore, our judiciary already was hyperactive late 20th century anymore "living doctrinism" will make it a judicial overreach

thank you for the reply.

not to pry but you left the firm due to the work culture?
I'm wanting to know about their LIT team, heard they're doing well?

I was thinking of applying for an internship for the summer months, wanted to plan in advance.

do interns get sufficient quality work? work that actually teaches them something?

recently constituted, NLSIR for general, BLR for business laws, SLR for socio-legal analysis, IJLT for techlaw, IJIEL for intl eocnomic law. board quality this time is excellent, mostly from '28 batch. turnaround time for blogs should be around 2-3 weeks, journal is a tricky scene because there is a very low chance of gettign published, since most published pieces are solicited. Same for blog, but you can try IJIEL/SLR for blog, their blog backlog i think is quite less.

Yes, that’s true. Rahul Gandhi has already done that. His Bharat jodo yatra was a massive success, which resulted in the Congress inning 99 seats. An awesome performance and super comeback! As old people die out and more young people become voters, the Congress tally will increase.

So yes, the answer is clear: Rahul Gandhi is India’s Zoran Mamdani.

From my research, have seen very few JAGs or recommended candidates enter law firms, so be aware of that (in case things do not work out). Was interning at DSK Mumbai and there is a person over there who somewhat fits this criteria. While my interaction with him was limited, a couple of other interns found him to be charming, approachable and smart (quite good looking as well). Basically, you could see why he seemed to be held in high regard.

Maybe reach out to him if you want to really pursue this...

First, try to apply and see if you are shortlisted. Post that, you will have to sit for the SSB...

If you do not know what the SSB is, I suggest you read up on this. The daddy of all exams, it is brutal, with the most notorious passing rate any exam has in the country. Then, you have the medical exam to determine your medical fitness.

Just apply first when the next notification comes and deal with it accordingly...

Adding further as I have another couple of minutes on my hand now:

If you're looking to brush up on CPC particularly, read up the following provisions & leading caselaws on that. To find the caselaws, ideally perform a general search on SCC (etc.) and see which are the cases you find quoted the most in recent judgments. For eg, for Order 7 Rule 11, you'd find Sopan Sukhdeo & Dahiben cited in almost every judgment/order on Order 7 Rule 11. Read such judgments.

Here are some such provisions, and the judgments I can remember off the top of my head.

Section 20 - Patel Roadways, Harshad Chimanlal Modi

Order 1 Rule 10

Order 7 Rule 10 - EXL Careers v Frankfinn

Order 7 Rule 11 - Dahiben, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable, RK Roja v UOI

Order 12 Rule 6 - Thangam v Navamani (SC), Suzuki Motor (Del HC)

Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 - Wander v Antox, (Some Bottling Co) v Coca Cola

Read up on Commercial Courts Act! Especially Order XI as amended by it. Very, very critical. Order XIII-A.

Also: Specific Relief Act - Sections 34, 38, 41.

See how suits are to be valued. And remember, Court Fees Act is state-subject. See your state's. In Delhi, the Punjab Amendment from 1960-something applies.

And miss on opportunity of working on complex and landmark matters. Don’t forget they got Schott Glass and Excel judgments from Supreme Court. They are leading cement cartel cases. They challenged the guidelines on tree pruning and obtained favourable order from Delhi High Court. They are acting in shareholders dispute in Solar Industries. The sound TMT and data protection practice. The trade and WTO practice and them handling complex trade disputes for Government of India. General Corporate practice - which is growing. They don’t want people who are afraid of working hard and are not liberal with time. So, don’t apply to AnantLaw - if legal profession is not your priority. AnantLaw trains you to be better professional.