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?
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/constitution-day-2023-legal-experts-decry-calls-for-a-new-constitution
The 'Colonial Constitution' is weird. Yes, the structure of our constitution (and consequently the original framework of government institutions) is based on an English law rendition of a nation - however, that is essentially sweeping out all the work done during the constituent assembly debates and the court cases post independence. Yes - it sounds cool to 'move fast and break stuff' - but there is a reason why this book is the grundnorm (and is permitted to be amended / scope expanded through case law).
I mean - kitaab bechna hai toh sahi hai - but please don't dress this up as some college is better than whatever.
Came across this on my TL. The reviewer sounds like an unnecessarily caustic boomer discouraging younger talent and being resentful of their NLSIU-Oxford credentials. In GB's case, he uses the standard RW argument and attacks "judicial wokeness". In AS's case, he uses the standard LW criticisms being made of the book.
Now, I searched for the reviewer's bio. The reviewer did his PhD from Queens University Belfast (ranked 100-150 in QS Law). He teaches at a university in Norther Ireland, UK, called Ulster University (not ranked in QS Law). His bio does not mention where he obtained his LLB from. Most shockingly, he has conducted a number of podcasts with Subramanian Swamy, who his known for being a RW hate monger, for a RW organisation called Virat Hindustan Sangam.
I am just sharing all this in public interest, so people can judge the bona fides of the reviewer themselves.
https://www.ulster.ac.uk/staff/v-iyer
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=125245022805933
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=357808589006232
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OWUSQugzM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzXFFBGkqDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm2jaZYNt4I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO9md2Dl-PU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-wj9et_t_LI