Its fraud because the university and the bar council dont just give you a "he cleared all the exams" degree. They give you a degree stating youve met expectations for a student at the university including attendance. Youre committing academic malpractice. Memorising crap two days before the exam regurgitating it on an answer script is not educating yourself.

Teachers are not entertainers. They dont have the production values of netflix. They are not in the project of entertaining. They are in the project of educating. Heres a big secret- the teacher already knows the law. They dont actually need to do anything at all- going to the best law school in the country- its kind of your responsibility to invest your time into your own education.

Grades are one measure of learning. Over time they have set easier and easier question papers and if things continue this way- you will have a high GPA- but you will not be employable- go ask jindal students how these antics worked out for them. Any university/ any degree is only worth how much each students invests into it. You think youre rebelling and hurting other people. Youre just hurting yourself.

Hes hired visiting professors who dont have NET- but that is permissible by the UGC. Everyone else hired on a permanent position has cleared UGC NET. This is such a strange thing to hang your hat on cause UGC net is such a random exam it convinces me youre a first year who has no idea at all. I'm done with this conversation.

So you do subscribe to the from river to the sea thing then? Where do you propose the jewish people if israel go? if they are this occupying force? youre not even bothering disguise the anti semitism at this point. FWIW jewish people are the only people for whom israel has ever been a homeland historically.

there we go- the mens rights activist finally comes out. Cause in a country where there is a widespread practice of dowry domestic violence against women doesnt happen. women just make it up no. Good for you man. You dont get to tell me what feminism is when you think married women arent treated cruelly in our society. I agree with what the court did on same sex marriage. and despite what you guys want- we will get the rape laws we want. Our wounds are our witnesses.

You see only Dalit men getting jailed on the say so of Savarna women, I see plenty of Savarna men getting jailed on the behest of Savarna women because of false 498A cases. Despite such empirical evidence, I don't claim for abolition of 498A, because that law is still necessary. You are just using rhetoric to substitute logic and didn't address any of the arguments made on their merit. You have made it clear that in your opinion men only seek leave to go to den of vices. After comments like that, your comments and perspective lack any further credibility. By the way, which empirical study revealed that exactly? In the name of feminism, if you want to practice misandry, that's on you. The law doesn't really work like that. Arguments like yours still continue to be one of the reasons why you still don't have the rape laws that you want. Case in point, the latest Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage.

I don't believe 'wrong' stuff. If the teachers cannot retain the attention of the students in class, then they need to revisit their teaching methodology and pedagogy. I do pay attention when the class is interesting. And allow my attention to drift when it is not. It has not harmed my grades so far at all, which goes to show the sorry state of connection between what the teachers teach and what they test for at NLS as well as at other places.

UPSC anyday. Rhodes can be "manipulated" to get a scholarship based on some personal identity/persuasive references/gearing one's CV towards areas that one finds niche. UPSC literally requires years of continuous effort and there is zero subjectivity in the process till the interview and even there, there is not much subjectivity.

As for the firm, expect delayed mid year bonuses. Even if this doesn't affect them directly, no one from HR or finance would have cojones to even suggest bonus payouts now. As for business, it will get affected gradually. Best thing the husband and wife can do is to resign from the firm. Let the firm survive for atleast their progeny and all others who've worked hard to make this firm what it is. I haven't seen a year when bonuses and increments are paid on time. Time to not swipe the credit card in hopes of mid year payouts.

First, learn to read properly. The "average age" is 28 years. Check the multiple magazine/newspaper surveys on this about the data on people entering the foundation course at LBSNAA. There will obviously be people who are younger or older since the exam can be given upto 32 years. One or two examples of people who are younger is not enough to calculate the average age, genius. And give me even one example of someone who dropped their UPSC rank to be a Rhodes. Name just one. There are Rhodes scholars who are IAS officers, though.

In the short term, a Rhodes might be more prestigious since there are only 5 scholarships available a year, but cracking UPSC for the IAS/IFS is a lifetime job. So, I don't think it's a simple contest of "which is better", as the intellectuals on LI love to reduce it to.

If speaking the truth may affect my LLM, let it be.

Please don't pursue law if you don't have the courage to speak and stand for what is right/wrong.

Mind you!

You are justifying mass killings of civilians, which is despicable. Be it Hamas or Israel.

Not a "guest"

Guys, just don't sit free. Keep adding to your skills. Even if you get an internship at some good place do that. Keeping applying for assessment internships. You can get an assessment converted into an offer. The job market is full of places where they will pay you less and extract more work out of you. 🥲🥲

Where exactly is the ad hominem? I dont see it. You keep saying im not right but you produce no argument what so ever to back up that claim. And this last response is just- sorry to say- incomprehensible rage drivel- I will try and make sense of it the best I can but youve lost the ability to make a coherent argument my dude. Take a nap.

Ive explained my reasoning perfectly clearly. I do see dalit men being jailed for no reason at the behest of savarna women yes. I think that's awful and it should stop. But women as a sex class have proven again and again that this happens to them. How did they prove it when theres no law? The illegality of rape is not what makes it objectionable! If rape laws didnt exist women would still be able to tell you that they've been raped. your brain got fried or something?

Women proved it historically through the wounds and bruises on their bodies, the bitten-off flesh, the torn away insides. They proved it through unwanted babies having abortions in back alleys, they proved it through medical testing when they were lucky and death. there are thousands of dead women to prove- this is a violence at affects this sex class. Thats not rubbish like you think it is.

I'm afraid progress doesn't mean we stop asking for empirical evidence from people when we want to make criminal law. I can invent a crime tomorrow and throw my inconvenient wife/girlfriend/ side chick in jail tomorrow? yes please. Like I said- men who are raped by men have a sodomy law that covers non-consensual acts. There is no empirical proof that women rape men as a society wide pattern. The fact that you think its hateful to ask for that proof before we make a law- should tell you how keen judges and juries would be to throw women into jail given the chance.

Im not bigoted for pointing out that society distrusts women and believes men. Centuries of rape cases prove just that.

Why do men getting paternity leave affect women? Well the government only has so many resources. We dont live in a world of magic. Companies only have so much money. If they have to grant paternity leaves so the dude can sit at home, change a diaper maybe once a day and ask his wife to make him coffee/ lunch/ dinner whatever- then that money is gonna come from somewhere- its gonna come from money set out for maternity leave. these resources are finite. they wont simply increase the corpus when they go gender neutral. I'd rather we do more for women who actually do- empirically- take care of infants. Than make weak policies hoping that men will be on their best behaviour and take care of their babies. "People who dont want to contribute" Which people are those? Are they not negligent fathers? lots of women bragging about changing a diaper once in a whilfe after giving birth? Or are they in fact the primary care giver of the child? If the negligent fathers will be negligent anyway why should we spend money on them and enable them to not contribute by working at home or at the office? Why is that a good strategy? Where is the movement of fathers who want to take care of their babies? I really don't see it. There are some good fathers but as a sex class in this country- the average indian uncle barely lifts a finger to take care of a new born.
People who actually want to take care of their babies will do so regardless- fathers arent physically destroyed by childbirth, they dont have to breastfeed- theyre fine- this is should not be the priority of any feminist movement. We do criminally little for mothers as is- Id rather we spend our time and resources there.

Why are anti rape laws and laws about protecting women in family law and all of that connected? Because they take into account sex based oppression! What about this is confusing to you? Women would not lose out on much if you didnt give paternity leave- Youre assuming that based on nothing- based on men saying "gee honey I wish I could help but I gotta go to work" and then take off and go to the gambling den and spend his time and money on his vices.

When you want to make all laws gender netural- which is the claim i was responding to- you are then gonna take away rights for the female sex. the additional protections we get because we are oppressed as a sex class. this is not rocket science.

People like me are the reason feminism exists- because the thought of there being sex-based oppression and violence and the thought of standing up for women- doesn't make us so uncomfortable that we have to scream out "What about men poor woobies". We're not pick mes. We are able to look at the sex based oppression squarely and advocate for real victims. If people like me did not exist- you would have a feminism thats just about mens rights. I dont really care if you call me rabid or if men call me rabid or insane or a witch. I dont seek to appease my oppressors, i seek to defeat them.

I am A-1. I earn 40k a month. I do litigation. Most of days my office end by 8 and I reach home by 9.

Nashe, hobbies thodi thodi ho jati hai.

Modest life hai.

Phir I see LI. I see all hues and cries and toxic work culture.

Most of the time I am not able to relate to it. But earnings of these peeps are beyond 1L, which makes me speechless. Then I see people cribbing over less salary when they are being paid around 1.5L (boss us firm me 1.7 hai, mera 1.5 hai...)

This question is to people working at T-1/2 or any other places where pay is good but work-life is screwed.

Is there a reason you choose to stay in such firms? I mean if things are screwed this much, where you cant have a good work-life, what's the point? Or is it that things here at LI is over exaggerated and in reality things are sorted or paiso k nashe chal rahe hai.

I personally wanted to switch to T-1/2 but never got accepted, stating I am not good enough. Khair wo to waqt btayega. :-P Jab jab bura lagta hai, tb yeha aa k sab k cribbing dekh leta hu, thodi validation mil jati hai.

Oof. You believe wrong stuff. If you think you have nothing to learn - that spending time by yourself watching Netflix is the best use of your time - you can actually do that. Just not at nls- this university has to maintain standards and decide when students have earned their degree. The university has every right to expect a standard of behaviour in its classrooms. The bar council has every right to expect that students will attend a certain number of classes. You’re being fraudulent not following those rules in letter and spirit. It’s fraud.

If you want an education where no one is holding you accountable or expecting you to attend class- do some IGNOU open schooling stuff. Or GLC even.

You don’t get to enter an institution knowing it’s rules and then defraud them and then claim they’re the facists.

Jeydev CS (NLS alum) cracked UPSC after a year drop (after graduation) and was still 26 when his results came out. Same goes for Akshat Jain who was 24 when he cracked UPSC. How did you infer that the UPSC age was 28 or above? I mean yes there are a lot of candidates around that age which is totally normal. Am I making a mistake in sampling then?

Also for Asian countries the Rhodes age limit is 26. Plus you can be 28 and earn Rhodes if you think about working for a couple of years. Read their brochure.

Personally I think it’s Rhodes. I have seen Rhodes scholars leaving their glittering UPSC ranks to grab a seat with a full funded scholarship in Oxford. But again for the grassroots it starts and begins with UPSC. There are a fair share of them who couldn’t grab Rhodes because of their writing skills but made it into UPSC after genuine efforts. Also Rhodes has an age limit of 28. UPSC’s age limit is much liberal in that sense.

Absolutely nothing wrong the way I see it. Jai did not have a lawyer engaged and he is someone who has briefed Gopal earlier. Gopal apparently asked Mahua if he could see if a settlement is possible. So he called Jai, who apparently recorded the conversation. He asked Jai to get back if he thought it was possible and Jai did not. We lawyers do this all the time and it doesn't amount to mediation. Awful of Jai to first keep quiet for years on so-called wrongdoings and then complain after he breaks up. Doubly awful to not even ask Gopal to withdraw but to make it seem like there was a conflict. I stand with Gopal on this.

Newslaundry has a profile on Dehadrai and his many U turns in life: https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/10/18/mahua-moitras-jilted-ex-former-toi-columnist-lawyer-who-is-jai-anant-dehadrai

Just because your college doesn’t make it into the headline, doesn’t mean that you keep bickering about about every single Rhodes thread. 2022 was a dry year for nlu in terms of Rhodes. So celebrating a mere shortlist is a bit much but not that exaggerated as you make it to be. Your contention- I repeat, NOT a valid one. Also fix your grammar will ya?

Gopal Sankarnayaran was the attempted mediator, as per this report: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mahua-moitras-lawyer-rescues-from-defamation-case-after-delhi-hc-rap-on-dehadrai-coercion-bid-101697787435049.html

What bias ? Is an affidavit from Darshan Hiranandani not adequate? Has Mahua once denied that she got FREEsunglasses , foreign trips, private villa vacays in exotic locales ? Has she once shared that she DID not share her parliament login with Darshan? Has she once denied that Shardul and Pallavi shroff were feeding her real time fake information on Adani ?

There are so much false equivalence in your comment that it beggars belief. The home that you speak of is as much of Palestinians as of Israelis, more actually. The latter are the ones occupying it on the strength of Western support because the latter feel guilty about not having done anything during the Holocaust. Nor are you giving death penalty to those who killed your own, but plenty of other civilians too, to whom you are the villain. If you have that much power, go into gaza and get hamas people out to kill them. How can bombing hospitals and killing Palestinian children be even justified by people like you who are supposedly educated, is anyone's guess.

I believe that spending time on my own is better for my education. I'm sitting in class because you won't let me sit for the exam otherwise. Once again, why don't you hold me back using your evaluation? Prove how much value addition your classes are providing? Or are you afraid that I would clear it without having to go through your classes and hence prove your redundancy?

You have gone ad hominem plenty of times. It is just that you like to think of yourself as not having done so.

The examples of protection that you gave has got no bearing whatsoever to allowing anti-rape laws for men. So your continuous claim of being right is just that, a false claim. You wear not being nice as a kind of badge, but it only makes you a jerk and does not add any value to your arguments at all. Nor are you right at all for the reason already stated.

You made a colossal assumption of the anti-rape laws involving women being jailed at men's behest. That really makes your entire argument biased, coloured and illogical. Unless you are habituated at seeing men being jailed without due process at women's behest because of the existing rape laws.

Women had to prove rape happens again and again before getting rape laws that they want? How did they prove anything at all until the laws were in place? Of course the laws are not perfect and there should be a continuous struggle to make them better. What you are saying that until those laws are perfected, nobody else should get any law at all, which is a rubbish argument.

Nobody taught me that only women have to be nice. Being a nice human being is actually something for every educated individual to strive for. You being a lousy person does not make you a better feminist or even a right one.

You keep contradicting yourself in your own statements. Women have to prove it before court beyond reasonable doubt before they get justice, but men won't have to because their word will be taken as gospel truth? Claims like this only prove your ignorance about how the legal process works.

As for paternity leave, your entire argument seems to be based on depriving others of something that you won after a struggle. That's not really how progress works. Going by that logic, for winning every step of progressive legislation, you would have to go through the same struggle that women have had to go through to win suffrage. Early struggles ought to make the lives of subsequent society better, it's not a rite of passage as you claim rather sadistically. If you don't give paternity leave, then the women would also be the ones who would be adversely affected by it, since the men would therefore have no choice other than to leave child rearing entirely to the women, even those men who actually want to help. How does depriving men of paternity leave help women get more rights or make their condition any better is a question to which only your fertile imagination may produce any answer. You seem to treat maternity leave as something that will be reduced when paternity leave will be given. Which is mind-boggling in terms of ignorance. If you are offended at the thought of men getting leaves for of a child, because women had to wait so long to get that, then that's just frustration speaking, because logically speaking, men have had to wait longer and the wait is still going on. People who don't want to contribute to the household won't do so regardless of whether leaves are given or not. People who actually want to won't be able to do so unless they are given leaves. You should reexamine your sense of logic if you don't get that.

You keep trying to talk about additional protection for women and conflate it with anti-rape laws. One wonders why because nobody claimed that these protections should be done away with. Which part of this additional protection of the examples that you have given would be in conflict with such law exactly? Or do you want additional protection for people who may commit such crimes? That's the same double standard that you glibly accuse others of. Throughout your supposed argument, you merely come across as a rabid individual, whose only point is that you have had to earn rights through struggle, so why should anybody else get similar rights without a struggle that's deemed acceptable by you? Even if it means that women would also be the ones losing out in the process like your claim about paternity leave showed. People like you are the reason feminism gets a bad name and also the reason why rights that might otherwise have been won with logical arguments become increasingly difficult to be attained. There is no use engaging with you because you look at everything through your jaundiced narrative regardless of whether it fits or not.

Justice Sachin Datta then said that he was appalled by the allegation and there could be a conflict of interest in Sankaranarayanan appearing for Moitra in this case.

"I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard. If you have been in contact with Defendant No 2..It means you have played the role of a mediator. Do you think you can appear in this matter," the Court asked.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/mahua-moitra-lawyer-gopal-sankaranarayanan-withdraws-jai-dehradai-delhi-high-court

OMFG!! Jai Dehadrai is John Wick on steroids!! Taking down Mahua, the Hiranandani group, SAM and now Gopal Shanks!! But it also shows what a cosy little cabal Lutyens Delhi is!!

Real, committed socialists are people like Bikash Bhattacharya, CPIM Rajya Sabha MP and Senior Advocate. He is arguing pro bono for victims of TMC corruption. Lives a simple life, wears simple clothes. Not Mahua. She is a champagne socialist. Feku in Ferragammo.

Delhi liberals hail Mahua because she speaks English well, but people in Bengal, including those in her own party, hate her because they know the truth about her. Her political career is over. An official TMC spokesman (Advocate Biswajit Deb) came on Times Now and openly said that she is not getting a ticket in 2024.

Risk factors:

- Ukraine

- Gaza

- Possible annexation of Taiwan by China

- Continued goondagiri by China

- Likely return of Trump

https://www.eiu.com/n/risk-outlook-2024-continued-high-interest-rates-could-lead-to-global-recession/

Nah . You’re just in a liberal feminist circle jerk. The point I was clearly trying to make is that men and women are treated differently in society. That’s why we have gendered laws. The reason we have gendered family laws is because men and women are treated differently. Doing away with that stuff would harm women. Those protections include age, gendered maintenance , adoption, divorce laws , protections against domestic violence, protections against incest and prohibited relationships. Doing away with gendered laws would hurt women.

So women have to prove that assault happens over and over and have to do a whole me too thing and still not really get rape law that works for them - but anecdotal evidence is enough to start jailing women at mens behest ? That seems like feminism to you ?

Whoever told you women have to be nice has done patriarchal programming well. Women are allowed to be angry and resentful of their oppressors. It doesn’t decrease their moral worth and it doesn’t make them less rational. Women don’t have to be nice any more than men do. I’d rather be right than nice anyway.

When men do a me too - we can talk about lifting gendered protections on women. It’s just wrong to claim that one doesn’t need to prove empirical truths to move for law reform. Like the world doesn’t revolve around your feelings. Women have proved that rape happens time and time and time again. And they still have to prove it in court with impeccable evidence instead of being taken at their word. Putting people in prison is an awesome exercise of state power - not something we should do because of mens feelings.

Women fight for generations to get maternity leave because passing another human through a key hole feeding them from your body and then taking care of them so they don’t choke on their spit and die should not make them lose their jobs. And men should just get paternity leave because hey - maybe if we do that then they might become contributing members of the house hold ? Let’s assume they’ll be their best selves despite everything we know about how men behave and gendered division of labour in households ? That doesn’t smack of double standards to you?

You’re not making laws for Sweden - you’re making laws for this country. It has to be influenced by empirical evidence for this country.

You not going ad hominem is a a good way to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you - but it doesn’t make me less moral than you because I haven’t gone ad hominem either.

I know 3 people from my college who are at AZB. A mix of multiple experiences thus. On a comparative scale of their experiences in the M&A, competition and restructuring team, I can vouch that my senior in the restructuring team has only positive things to say about the team and work. His partners seem to look out for their associates and have a great rapport with the team. He seems to have good work/life balance too. I would suggest you make the most out of your internship because this is one of the very few non toxic teams in the Tier 1 spectrum from what I know.

For a law against a crime to be created, it does not have to be shown that a large number of people are affected by the crime. Even if the number is small, and they don't have a legal recourse, then a law is needed. There are several incidents where allegations of men having been raped and sexually assaulted by men and women have been raised. If you wish to discount all those as "Internet videos", then that's your prerogative, but that does not make you a particularly nice person or a good lawyer. The anti-sodomy law cannot and does not protect against all instances and types of sexual assault.

How does this matter get connected to the rest of the issues that you spoke of I do not know. There are problems that exclusively affect women. Such as dowry deaths. Creating exclusive laws for those has got no bearing with this. As for your talk about men getting menstrual leave or maternity leave, there did not seem to be any point in it to respond to. I for one would like for men to have paternity leave, because that is meant to pass the message that looking after the child is the responsibility of both the mother and the father.

I do not wish to go ad hominem, so I'll stop here. My only point is that there is nothing in feminism that prevents an anti-rape law to be made where men can be considered as victims of such heinous crime and not only perpetrators. If you believe that there is no such incident happening, then no case will be filed under such law. Not considering that men can be victims of sexual offences is actually patriarchal, last time I checked.

Yeah, I know. But then they will not give relieving and F&F certificate. First bond amount then exit documents. Also, in background check they have given bad reviews of their employees. Read employee reviews online and you'll know. Their major target are job seekers from Bihar, UP and other states who will work under and according to them. Jo bhar se aya hai vo kya ladega in corporates se. So culture started, culture followed and culture continued.

Sahi baat hai, job k liye dignity, self-respect, freedom sab chod du. World has moved on from few lala's to established companies. Its about improving the old mind-set and rules and not about glorifying it. And here we are talking about professionals who put a lot of efforts and money in their education.

abh toh pura letter hi public hogya jisme sam ke partners name hai

Source : https://twitter.com/maryashakil/status/1715020967309885465

While we’re comparing that let’s compare the total number of Muslims and Jews on the planet ? And

The number of Jews killed in anti semitic events ? Don’t know much history but I think I heard something about that. Consequentialism is not a good argument. If someone comes into my house and tortures my baby and rapes my wife and that person then gets the death penalty - they are suffering a worse consequence - they are paying with their lives. But no one is gonna be telling me I should get over my grief because the guy suffered worse. He provoked the entire thing. It’s not how humans work. Palestinians are not all Hamas - but clearly a good number of them support Hamas. If Israel doesn’t defend it self - if it negotiated with terrorists - if it does “ proportional response” to terrorist actions - it does not survive. The IDF is a sight better than Hamas anyday. They minimise civilian casualties , they don’t rape people, or hide behind babies and use them as human shields. They follow rules of war. Israel has offered peace and agreed to a two state solution for a long while now. It’s the reason they were not in the Gaza Strip. They tried trading away land for safety - Hamas has refused them over and over and over again. From the river to the sea. They just hate Jews man. There’s no two sides to this when one side protects babies and another side uses them as human sheilds. When one side warns people to minimise civilian casualty and another side sends handgliders into music festivals.

Why ? Do we have any proof at all that this is a common problem ? Women raping men ? Don’t tell me about some video you saw on the internet - stats - where’s the proof ? Women had to prove that it was a problem - Over and over again. They have to prove it’s a problem to have their complaints taken seriously. So I’m not holding men up to a double standard or an impossible standard.

Men raping men exists - that’s why we have an anti sodomy law. Can still use it if they’re forced into non consent stuff by other men.

Dowry deaths ? Do men get protection there ? What about acid attacks ? Stalking and voeuyrism and harassment ? What about anti discrimination stuff at workplaces ? Should men get maternity leave ? Should they get menstrual leave ? Should men be in lactation rooms ? How much of its welfare resources dedicated to programmes on women should the state spend on men?

Why do you think men are underprivileged by the patriarchy ? Does the empirical evidence prove it ? Or do you just not want to hurt their precious feelings ?

We have laws like this because we have sex based oppression.

No one is asking you to fill yourself down by studying all the time. They’re telling you to not sleep and watch Netflix in class. In class. It’s five hours a day. If you can’t give that much time and attention to your education you don’t want to be in college - you want to be in a five year vacation.

The above numbers are wrong for sure. For accurate numbers for PA1 and PA 2, add 5 /9 lakhs to the higher number for each of the bands. Of course, the cited numbers can also be true for some teams. IDK about that.

But the numbers in the immediately above comment are mostly imagination. PA3 and first year partner salaries are quite close to be honest.

If you don’t do the work. If you don’t behave like an adult- then you get the consequences. That’s not fascism- it’s just the world being different than you’d like. Class time is learning time - If the class is boring elevate the class- that’s what good students do. Bad students let it become an excuse to slack off. There is a world of difference between passing exams and actually knowing the subject. What kind of lawyer do you want to be ? Why won’t you invest more energy into your own education?

Linkedin is full of recruiters posting about vacancies across all levels and when you approach them, there is no response from their side. It is not a case wherein the candidate does not possess requisite experience. There is this recruiter who post everyday about vacancy in firms across "all levels" and when you approach she will not even bother to respond to you. And having said that, recruiters only plays the role of poaching and lobbying of candidates disrupting an established practice of a law firm then venting it out on social media platform against each other. Isse better consultancy firms hai jo in house lgwati hai, 90% of the time it will be legit.

From Jai Anant Dehadrai @jai_a_dehadrai:

An attempt was made yesterday afternoon, to coerce me into withdrawing my cbi complaint and letter to @nishikant_dubey in exchange for Henry. I flatly refused - will give details to CBI. Messenger is totally innocent - but tells you everything about her.



Jai Anant Dehadrai

@jai_a_dehadrai

·

2h

An attempt was made yesterday afternoon, to coerce me into withdrawing my cbi complaint and letter to @nishikant_dubey

in exchange for Henry. I flatly refused - will give details to CBI. Messenger is totally innocent - but tells you everything about her.

151

930

2,634

120.8K

https://twitter.com/jai_a_dehadrai/status/1715175604721733934



Jai Anant Dehadrai

@jai_a_dehadrai

·

2h

An attempt was made yesterday afternoon, to coerce me into withdrawing my cbi complaint and letter to @nishikant_dubey

in exchange for Henry. I flatly refused - will give details to CBI. Messenger is totally innocent - but tells you everything about her.

151

930

2,634

120.8K