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?
Regarding featuring, most anti-reservation comments are full of statements amounting to "oh the wokes are the downfall of human civilisation", "to mention caste is to encourage Hinduphobia", "only upper castes are smart" and other such pearls. If you agree with those statements and want them featured, please print the comments out or start a Facebook group or something.
If there's a well-argued argument adding to the discussion made against reservation or for a conservative cause, without ad hominem, hate, untruths like the above examples, we have and will feature those comments. That is not a high bar and should not be difficult.
The bias is also clear by virtue of the mod marking only pro-reservation comments as featured.
Or it could be that the software has developed sentience and realised that malarkey poster should be shadow-banned from voting, judging by their propensity to believe unlikely conspiracy theories about how they are being victimised by the bad left-wing man? :)
The correct calculations are the following:
General: 115 (approx 86 seats for all India but considering the past performance of Karnataka Students and the Domicile being horizontal, the All India seats will mostly go past 95)
SC: 36
ST: 18
OBC: 52
EWS: 19
Horizontal categories: 58 for women and 60 for Karnataka Students (Last year women's quota was not even triggered. The Karnataka Domicile is also horizontal in nature, and in the last two years not more than 15% has been triggered in the general category because students from Karnataka do really well in the All-India Merit itself.)
You can cry about reservations all you want, but the truth is General seats remain the same when a new reservation is brought about (by an increase of seats), thus, your seats are not going anywhere. Moreover, our public institutions desperately need to be more representative and reflect national composition.
More importantly, the comment is factually incorrect and genuinely fake news, because:
1. SC/ST/OBC people have a shot at these seats and anyone who makes it is included as a merit list candidate and moved there from the SC/ST/OBC list, thus creating another vacancy in the SC/ST/OBC list. This has happened before at NLSIU.
2. Since when did Parsis, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and Muslims become savarna?? These people are eligible for these seats too.
So it's wrong and fake to call it a "savarna quota"
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/nlsiu-increases-student-intake-for-2023-24-ba-llb-and-llm-programmes-8337389/
In other words, the pure merit seats (i.e. no caste or domicile or EWS quota) are:
3/4 of (180- 36-18-52-19) = 3/4 of 55 = 41 seats.
This is exactly why we need to stop quotas in India.