So the argument is that unless you’re doing first principles jurisprudence type work it’s all useless and not worth recognition? Smh. I’d rather be an indira Jaisingh and win victories for vulnerable communities and change the shape of Indian legal system than be a tarunabh khaitan and write books and bills that only show how much of an ivory tower we live in.

The world has come a long way since analytical positivism of the HART/ Raz variety. Recent advances in legal theory take place in the critical legal theory realm- a Kimberley Crenshaw or an Ambedkar in the Indian context have said far more interesting things about the law than most of the folks named on this list.

At the outset, it must be stated that on first glance, nobody as such comes to mind.

But let's examine this more closely

So, depends on a number of factors.

If you're talking about intellectuals who deal primarily in first principled arguments and maybe jurisprudents in that regard, especially when it comes to the strength of their assertions, the first name that'd spring to mind is Chhatrapati Singh. I would contend that his work is much better than Hart's work will ever be. But then again he's no more so I guess that wouldn't qualify as "today's academia".

If you're talking about scholars who influence the law in the way the mentioned have, the answer would be none. Nobody has done that sort of work in India or maybe even abroad for that matter.

Or if you're talking about the mere popularity of their work, even then nobody has the status of that of Hart.

So, based on all these factors it would appear that our intuition is right. Nobody today has the status of Hart or Dworkin and appears like nobody will in the near future.

However, it must be stated that there is a lot of scholarship from India that is great in it's own regard. The mere fact that they're not like Heart or Dworkin doesn't take anything away from their work.