Lol, I see what you did there. Conveniently equating a doctorate from Yale with one from NLS. Let's be clear here, even a first year student at a top NLU wouldn't care for a PhD from NLS unless the person has atleast a UG degree from NLS or another top NLU. And YP is a good professor despite the lack of a foreign PhD. But that's more of an exception than a norm.

Not really. Of course, certain specific research may need such facility, however, most of the law and psychology research output that have been published in India involved empirical research involving teams and funding, but not special lab facilities. Libraries having decent stats software like SPSS, good database and functional computer systems are enough.

If you don't have an institution that can provide you with the adequate resources then the advisor doesn't matter. Imagine joining a known advisor and your university doesn't even have an updated library or newest lab. Moreover if your advisor is really well known, they may not always be hands on with you because of time paucity. Best is to find a great institution first and then a above average advisor in it. Law is a field where you can easily mold the reaserch within your interest. It's not divided strictly like sciences are.

But it’s more like a graph. Both matter because a good institution offers more mentorship than just your advisor. You can learn from the whole community although some people choose not to. It is a combination. Also remember that all good scholars are not good mentors. Find someone who will care about you, support you during your defence and recommend you.

Ummm...no. YP's supervisor is not a well known name in the field. He did it from CUSAT for personal reasons. Also most of his work is already well known even before he did his PhD. His supervisor had no role, he was brilliant scholar even before he started his PhD.

OP focus on the top 10 universities. At the end of the day, India does not have stellar advisors. Most of the best are abroad and they do not have the luxury of taking in 100 doctoral candidates. So unless you have a stellar record, the advisor you will receive will be mid- at best. So ultimately the institution matters. Especially if you want to start an academic career. Rest, your own career and connection will be built on the research that yoh produce post PhD.

Also the ripped apart by external or RAC is BS ! In the end you will always know more about your research area than your advisor. Your advisor is only there to help you with the modes of research and not with the actual content. So whether you will be ripped apart or not will depend on how well you researched your topic. All the best.

In a PhD, your institution comes second and your advisor comes first, generally. Exception would be if you are doing it from Yale/Oxbridge/Harvard. If your supervisor has 0 idea about your topic, there are chances that you'd be ripped apart by external examiners or members of your research advisory committee. Your supervisor, if s/he's well connected, can introduce you to experts in the field and other academics. I'll give you an example. One of the most prominent faculty at NLUD has a PhD not from NLS or Yale, but from ▮▮▮. Why? Because the supervisor was a well known name in the field.

Since I have no inclination towards a particular field or particular scholar, so should I focus on the top institutes for a PhD? Is the institute name bigger than the advisor ? I can understand abroad, especially USA where the advisor is bigger since they're known globally. However, how about India ? I still feel for a job people look at the institute first.