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!

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!

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

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

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.

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 !

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 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.

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.

You may want to have a look at this old article by Srivatsa Krishna, IAS:

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Four-vital-steps-to-fight-corruption/articleshow/8908705.cms

Why no protest from NALSAR regarding this?

A video that has surfaced on the internet recently shows senior journalist Aman Chopra allegedly being harassed by Jharkhand Police amid his coverage around the ongoing student protests in Ranchi. In the viral video, Chopra, a senior journalist associated with the Network 18 group can be seen being approached by the cops while he was reportedly having breakfast. He calmly asks the cops why he is being questioned when they asked him to join them for questioning. He can also be seen confronting the cops in a room, trying to fetch a reason behind his alleged detention. Cops can be heard saying, "His acts have been disrupting their duty."

https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/jharkhand-student-protests-aap-iss-tarah-se-kyun-journo-aman-chopra-questioned-by-cops-while-having-breakfast-bjp-slams-soren-video

Hi,

As an M&A lawyer from tier-1, how difficult or easy is it to switch to Disputes practice of a law firm. Also i have heard partners like manmeet singh have worker in PF practice area for years and now are great disputes lawyer. Also is the experience of M&A discounted and do we need to join as fresher or A0

It’s also reported by The Bar Bulletin https://thebarbulletin.com/elp-partners-restructuring-tax-trade-practice-separation/

The difference between Kant and Gogoi (other than the latter being more apparently condemnable) is that Gogoi was never invited to NALSAR. This CJI's words and actions have been condemnable, and have come during his time in the office. And BJP government ministers and CMs have not been as big a problem, because they do not hold a judicial position that the students are most proximately affected by.

NALSAR is an institution in itself and in the country, and a comparison with American unis is a false equivalence. Politicians in Telangana invoke its name in their campaigns, and it will have a constant stream of legal and judicial experts without fail. Speaking out against the institution, at the university level as well as the national level, is their right, and also the very essence of NALSAR. And also a veiled message against NALSAR leadership that wants to use the convocation to further its own political agenda. If you have a problem with people speaking their minds freely and publicly, go to Pakistan (lol).

Not to give too much away but his defence during the open house the following day was quite funny. Looked at hickeys and thought they were signs of "domestic violence".

Think the slap is more recent and from his time at CNLU, where I imagine he functions independent of higher forces.

Going to jump in - the FTC's internal adjudication feels like a "kangaroo court" (as argued in Para 31 of the Axon complaint) is precisely because the agency lacks political accountability. Proponents of the Unitary Executive argue that structural unfairness happens because these "independent" agencies answer to "no one". If the President had the power to oversee, the structural bias could be checked by a politically accountable branch. Therefore, the "fairness" argument and the "unitary" argument are two sides of the same coin.

Justice Thomas explicitly questioned the constitutionality of the FTC’s entire structure on Article II grounds. He noted that combining prosecutorial and adjudicative powers in an agency that is insulated from presidential control raises severe constitutional problems. By doing this, Thomas showed that you cannot separate the "fairness" of the ALJ setting from the "unitary theory" of executive oversight.
The primary claim in Axon was that FTC ALJs are insulated with "for-cause" removal protections, the Kangaroo court aspect was add-on.

Have been applying to their internships ID but to no avail. Have two tier 1s on my CV (banking teams) and am in my last year of law school. What is the process of their internship application assessment and which banking teams in Wadia are good? Any HR email IDs people here can help with? If gotten, what are the chances of conversion?

I am in a dire and desperate need, would really appreciate any insight or help.

i learnt the phrase concealed classism today and immediately thought of the beautiful law firm dynamics where this behaviour is inculcated, encouraged and actively practiced (some particular partners come to mind who probably have specific schools of thought on how to properly do this!!). love to see law firms keeping up our traditional values!!

First, let us be real specific with words, because you have been quite loose with it. There is no "prosecution" here; we are not talking about a criminal statute. We "mimic" a prosecutor model, in the sense the DG is expected to behave independently, which is why the 26(1) order is administrative and the DG is not beholden to it. The separation of powers issue becomes a bigger issue when it's a criminal statute and the application of Article 21. The extent of the powers of the DG now as a question of law remains in a set of tagged cases before the SC, but that is in a separate issue, so let us park that.

We borrowed this form from Europe, where the same question indeed arose – the question is frequent when you do EU competition law 101. Brahm Dutt was exactly on this aspect, which was why we had a well-defined appellate structure, and a legal member was necessary and added to the members of the Commission. Is this enough? No, but the question was asked and dealt with. Is the CCI now saying it is unsure of its constitutional foundations over and above Brahm Dutt when subsequent amendments specifically raised addressed Brahm Dutt? These questions arose in Europe itself, and both ECJ and the EHCR have made decisions in competition law cases on the right to a fair trial.

Second, I spoke about the reason behind the summary procedures in the CPC and why they exist – for speed. To avoid you putting words in my mouth I am re-framing your question again - where else do you find an agency that houses within itself, both the power to "prosecute" in your words (which is take up a case on its own motion and also investigate) and the same body (not same person) also thereafter adjudicates? This point has been asked and answered on this thread already. Nevertheless, here are a few from the top of my head from last week.

I just appeared before the ED a few weeks ago on a FEMA matter – the complaint was filed by the ED, an investigation was done by the ED, and then I was heard by an adjudicating officer, who was also someone within the ED. Just a few days ago I was dealing with Estate officer order issued under Public Premises Act, after the estate division officials of a govt body filed a complaint before the Estate officer, the estate division also conducted the inspection all part of the same body, leading to Estate officer passing an order against a party. The latter act is interesting because your question has been resolved by a Supreme Court ruling. In both these laws there sits a tribunal in the form of SAFEMA for the former or, in the latter, the Principal District Court sits as an appellate body.

Third, none of this is new – like someone else already said. There are so many statutes with the exact same construct. Read the provisions of RERA, CCPA and SEBI already mentioned here. Stop wearing these competition law blinkers and read more Indian laws. RERA, CCPA and SEBI – all these have dedicated appellate authorities. It is solved by having a dedicated appellate authority to deal with any judicial infirmity of any order. Does the competition law have that? Yes. It had a dedicated one. That came through Brahm Dutt. Then it was unwound – not by the CCI, mind you.

What is happening is a clear import of US constitutional theories into the running and operation of Indian regulators, mixing with the recent Indian government moves of nixing independence of statutory bodies. Much of this is at the behest of Big Tech and domestic monopolies in India. So we come back to the important question for you – you said, "The CCI didn’t say they won’t take suo moto matters at all. They just said they’ll be judicious on when to intervene." So its clear the CCI understands it has suo moto power (which it can use judiciously – so discretion within discretion), but it announces a collateral constitutional claim anyone can make in any of their cases? Anyone with litigation muscle will raise this now – like we see many Big Tech already doing.

All that was required was formal guidelines for the initiation of cases. I agree those directly or formerly employed by the CCI should not be parties before the CCI, but why forego the power in this manner? Now let's test what the CCI has foregone on the basis of the CCI website – which is the last suo moto case taken by the CCI? There are two orders, SM 02 and 03 of 2025 (mind you, SM orders include leniency cases too). Before that we had the Meta case. Have a good look yourself. Forget having a quota of SM cases; the CCI has not started much for years. It's docile and atrophying. You really think the CCI was not getting enough information to go on its own motion?

Finally, on state enforcement, in the US, antitrust is not just the prerogative of the federal government alone. Some of the most important cases are being pursued by state AGs in both Texas and California. Even in Europe, competition law enforcement also percolates down to every national agency. This limits institutional capture at a single point, and at the same time there is a multitude of agencies which are constantly reviewing market practices. I know several senior state government officers who have quietly said filing with the CCI did not result in improved behaviour in tenders and have considered action within their own powers. It is precisely the reason why administrative blacklisting has been used more and is seen as far more effective.

In India we have one brow-beaten agency, which remains inaccessible to most, and with a record that invites no one to seriously pursue cases, as remedies, let alone monetary compensation, remain out of sight. Our regulator has been "pro-actively" learning "best practices" now for 20 odd years – perhaps it pays for some to have it in a constant state of learning or speak fecklessly on "light touch" regulation. I guess being reduced to learning also helps when you are routinely underfunded and also understaffed. Maybe that allows you to sleepwalk yourself into a constitutional crisis while you have active cases before you.

▮▮▮.

I had applied for an Associate position, and after reviewing my CV and experience, they called me for an interview. However, when I went for the interview, they told me that they were actually offering a 3-month unpaid Assessment position to freshers, after which they would decide whether to retain the candidate as a Trainee or Associate.

This is extremely unfair and misleading. Freshers put in significant effort, complete multiple internships, and build their experience specifically to avoid being placed in such situations. If the position is actually an unpaid assessment, that should be clearly mentioned in the job posting or communicated before calling candidates for an interview.

Calling someone for an Associate position, reviewing their CV and experience, and then offering an unpaid 3-month assessment is simply not transparent or professional.

Rubbish. Time to place a few facts on the table:

1. CAM is the biggest firm in India by miles. Clients want the CAM seal of approval on any legal advice, so that there is no regulator scrutiny/legal risk. We are often left cleaning up after the other so called tier 1 firms have given horrible advice/conducted horrible diligence/botched litigations.

2. CAM as an organization never forces people to stay. People are free to leave if they are unhappy. Work and client servicing goes on.

3. No further partners are leaving. Stop spreading lies.

4. The partners who left were not billing much anyway. So there's no real harm to the firm. We have enough competent partners/teams to pick up the slack.

Did anyone see this?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/law-grad-jumps-to-death-from-13th-floor-in-mumbai-after-women-threatened-to-frame-him-in-police-case/articleshow/133048877.cms

Does anyone know him or know what happened? ▮▮▮ This is so heartbreaking.

Who said? They did not share the budget for the role or the JD before the interview. Took around 3 rounds as far as I remember, and the JD was given only at the time of release of offer. I got through via college placement; only to reject it later. The others who joined left within a year mostly. They do bulk hiring and the JD is shit.

Rohan heads the disputes practice and has quality litigation work. He brings his immense knowledge to the table and is seen doing commendable work. The pay is better than AZB, of course. And at par with CAM, KCO. It’s the only disputes team in the firm so close to about 6-7 people are there

A reputation that exceeds him. Need not say much, being associated with the Tatas and then having the sheer willpower to go independent and start a firm that has a better if not at par culture than the Big 4 of Law. Lawyers working there are really happy and we all know how rare that is. To add to it, they’re a small happy family and are doing good work, and all with a sea facing office that the rest of us drive by and can only dream to be working in.

Shows that he was regarded as a public intellectual much before CJP. Also shows that NALSAR students were very much aware of him and are not just jumping on the bandwagon.

https://x.com/SauravDassss/status/1775415597322670565

Prosecution by itself is very boring. It can help build a basis for a career in IP litigation, but if you ever the onus will be on you to (1) not get complacent about hours: prosecution hours and litigation hours are very different, (2) keep in touch with recent case law and (3) know that you will be behind your peers on procedural laws. But if you have the drive, you can catch up easily; it is not hard.

Very few people and firms do quality media and entertainment work. If you find one, then that's a great alternative to IP litigation.