Most of the time anyone who's from one of the ivies or t5 of uk are very good and have reasonable expectations,p

one of the best I think for legal is Nigam Nuggehalli, Salmoli chaudhury is pretty good too currently crim is being taught by both Radhika and Anupama both have been excellent, Atreyee Majumder is one of the profs who taugh

Almost every faculty member at NLSIU is distinguished in his/her own way. Even those recently joined are very carefully selected and taken on board. See the research profile, nobody less than other, of course depending on age and experience. No Indian law school (probably except Jindal and to some extent Delhi University) is anywhere close to NLS faculty.

Such a thread could be useful for NUJS or NALSAR or NLUD or other places where few people are great and many mediocre.

Such a thread not needed for NLS Bangalore.

Sudhir probably cares the most about how class goes. Its not just a job to him- if class goes badly it affects him in a way I dont think it does for other profs.

But I have a soft spot for Nigam. He's very knowledgeable and extremely easy to listen to and he manages to give grace to eberyone and generally treat people as if he has affection for them. Love.

He never cares about what the students who need the class the most ends up learning. He pitches the class at a certain level and doesn't bother about those who may not be able to cope at that level. That may be the hallmark of a superior scholar, I won't know. However, that's not really the features of a good teacher.

youre assuming that lack of preparedness is about someone not being smart enough or not being sophisticated enough. Lack of preparedness is just that- you didnt do the reading. Its just investing time. Now if you dont do the reading- its not really incumbent on the professor to change how he teaches for you- if he does that- he will dumb down the class and take away incentive to hard work for other students and generally accomplish a lot less.

Help is not always someone doing what you want. Good teaching is not always just having the most fun lectures and activities. If you only went to doctors who gave you candy- youd just get diabetes. A good professors job is to hold his students accountable and to incentivise them to do the work and to allow them the opportunity to- after leaving his classroom- be able to talk to any scholar/ judge/ lawyer in the world knowledgeably about the subject.

In my experience, if you read the reading- and have a paragraph or a point you werent clear about- and you ask that as a question in class, Sudhir is quite happy really with that sort of engagement. If you dont want to do any work- yeah hes not the guy for you.

My experience with him is different and you are the one making these assumptions, not me. He has always shown a remarkably arrogant display when asked questions. He is not approachable enough as a teacher. He prefers to generate an aura of fear and awe, which is not what a good teacher should do. Never said that one needs to make lectures 'fun', but if you have your say in class and the students don't understand you, then you have failed in your job.

Well, what you see as arrogance I see as - just him not needing validation from me. That’s fine- I’m there to learn, I’m the student.

I don’t particularly care that he’s not approachable. I have friends. I don’t need him to be my buddy. I don’t need to cry to him about my break up or my problems. I need him to care that I learn his subject. He clearly does care that I learn what he’s teaching because he has exacting standards.

It would be creepy for him to try to be my friend or confidante. That’s not his job.

If students don’t understand someone because they zoned out or didn’t pay attention or didn’t do the reading - I mean it’s ridiculous to evaluate professors by what their worst students are able to get. It’s not actually the professors job to download information to your brain- it’s his job to guide you through that stuff yourself. You’re gonna have to read and think for yourself. That’s why we have universities. It’s not school.

1. An ambiguity: What type of "questions" are we talking about here? Obvious stuff? Stuff you should have known, if you put in even half the work required prior to class?

2. A note on his work ethic: He feels very bad if he himself hasn't done things properly in preparation for his class. He recounts an incident during his NUJS stint where he didn't come ready for a class for some reason, and practically cried later because of how he felt he'd let down the students by not preparing properly himself. If a guy starts crying because he hasn't applied himself on one day to the preparation work required of him - that too, cries when he is teaching LLB students, after himself being a topper in his own law school cohort at NLSIU, somebody who did well at the Oxford BCL and DPhil as a Rhodes Scholar and taught at Columbia - you can imagine (and readily justify) his reaction when a student doesn't do the work.

Did he say whether he was chastised and humiliated because of his lack of preparation for a class that he was being paid for? Because he was not. Yet that's precisely the same standard that he likes to hold students to. Which is the problem. Whether he 'almost cried' or not is only hearsay. However, he did make many people actually cry. The incident that you described if true should have taught him more empathy. Clearly it didn't. Him being a law school topper, Rhodes scholar etc. has got nothing to do with justifying his lack of preparation when he himself doesn't listen to any excuses from anyone else about theirs.

1. How do you know that he wasn't told off privately? Are you privy to everything that went on inside of the NUJS admin at that time?

2. The standard he holds students to are the very ones that caused him to beat himself up mentally inside his own head (a process which made him almost cry, at least according to his own account of things) for not preparing for a class once, and for creating a rule for himself that preparation for class was the most important task in his to-do lists.

3. Finally, his own credentials are absolutely relevant because the attitudes and approach to life that enabled him to gain those is what he brings to the table in his own teaching, in terms of what he expects of himself and his students.

He isn’t making excuses. He doesn’t need to tell anyone that story. Why do you think he tells that story ? Because he wants to tell people that you can make a mistake and learn from it. And to tell you how seriously he takes his work and how much he values the time and effort that students put in.

You’re essentially saying - because Sudhir fell short of his own standards one time he’s supposed to have no standards. That’s the only moral action that’s left to him. That is patently absurd. Of course everyone makes a mistake and you hold yourself accountable and make no excuses and try and do better everyday. With any other morality you will inevitably see a race to the bottom.

He need not tell the story, but he tells it nonetheless, while carefully not highlighting the fact that he wasn't in fact held accountable for his mistake. If he knows that he can make mistakes, then he should know that so can others and behave with them accordingly, with empathy.

I mean this kind of RC would mean you got some disapproval in a Sudhir class. Man is holding himself accountable you idiot. That’s what telling that story is- in that story he even says he apologised to the students. He’s chastising himself about something that happened years ago. Not because he was lazy but because he did not prioritise properly. Learn from his example and be humble and own your own mistakes instead of harping on others.

Exactly. If he has learnt from his own mistakes, then so can others. Without him having to humiliate them in the process. That's what empathy is all about. "Not because he was lazy but because he did not prioritise properly." - That's exactly the kind of reason several students also don't manage to honour deadlines. A good teacher tries to understand the reasons why a student is not doing things in time. The laziness isn't to be encouraged, nor should genuine reasons or mistakes be penalised. Since you are getting ad hominem about me, should I tell you in turn that you are being paid by Sudhir to defend him?

Speaking just for myself:

See... you can't even get ad hominem right. I'll bet you anything you like that if my name (let us call me 'X' for now) became known as being that of someone who defends Sudhir on here or who agrees/expresses agreement with those who do, Sudhir will ask, 'Who on earth is this nobody of a graduate student in London?', and will happily produce bank statements/other documentation constituting a paper trail proving that he has nothing to do with me (and I will be happy to do likewise). So unless you are suggesting that somehow both of us have enough money at our personal disposal to open secret accounts in the sorts of places where they don't ask questions and just care about the money flowing into the account, you will really have to reconsider your ideas, and come up with a more plausible (false) accusation/line of attack.

The reality of making mistakes in the big, bad world is that you must suffer consequences (99% of the time). By giving you a solid firing when you make them (though individuals may defer on the level of severity employed - that is a judgment of the individual educator in question which should mostly be respected, unless objectively disproportionate or possible to prove some unfair influence), he is just showing you that.

According to these people, Sudhir is the human personification of the fiend from the pit! He schemes, he is "economical with the truth" (the words of Sir Robert Armstrong (as he then was), not the Sudhir critics - they don't have the brains or the sophistication levels to use such phrases), he is a bully. And yet... when they try to convince others about his fiendishness, all we see is a good (but very strict) teacher.

You Sudhir fans start attacking people anytime they dare to make a criticism about him. Your assumption is that anyone who is not understanding what he is saying is someone who does not work hard. Which is as flawed an assumption as it gets. If you are claiming that all students of Sudhir talk knowledgeably about the subjects that he teaches, that's laughable. His teaching suits some students, it does not others. The former are not the only ones worth teaching, the latter are not all lazy entitled people. He has always lacked empathy for people around him unless they are his personal favourites. It's a trait that he carries into the classroom. If someone questions him on his knowledge of many streams of law, he will be found to be shockingly inadequate. Does that mean he is a bad scholar? No. So why does every single undergraduate student in his class have to end up as a constitutional law or jurisprudence specialist for him to accord basic respect to them? Good teachers make their subject seem interesting (assuming students make basic efforts on their part), but they also are able to explain concepts lucidly enough for non-experts to understand it, as well as accommodating patiently people who need extra help in that regard. Sudhir as a classroom teacher fails in that regard. Several examples of the kind of good teacher that I am talking about exist in Law School itself now. Mrinal, Saurabh, Rahul are all teachers of that calibre. Sudhir simply is not.

Ok I’m gonna ignore all the words you’re putting in my mouth and simply restate - if you do the reading- his classes aren’t nearly that bad at all. I’ve done both and I’ve felt the difference.

I don’t need empathy or sympathy or a crying shoulder from my VC. What a creepy thing it would be. It would be unprofessional for the VC or any faculty to not maintain professional distance from students. I don’t need them to buy my excuses and think “ oh poor you - will an O make it better ?” I need them to watch over me and make sure I leave law school more educated than I came in.

I know I was better able to have conversations with others about the law after his courses than before them.

If you don’t want to study consti - don’t. But the flip side of that is - the consti prof won’t be fond of you. You won’t be his favourite . That’s okay. What about that is unfair ? Why should a professor be pally with students who aren’t even interested in what he’s spent his life doing ?

Other students get this. They don’t care about corp- they’re not surprised when they get bad grades or the corp folks don’t love them. That’s just life.

He is absolutely at liberty to judge you based on how you performed or behaved in his classroom- it’s literally his job to evaluate you and your work. If you prove yourself to be a stellar private law person who has an amazing career - he can reverse that evaluation - he’s a person- he’s entitled to all of that. It is not a moral failing. It’s just being a person.

He had good grades in all his subjects as a student - he needed to be at the top to get Rhodes or Oxford. Academia is a hard nut to crack without the top gpa.he just expects from his students the discipline he follows himself. The guy runs marathons. It’s okay to fall short - but it’s not a moral failing that he holds people up to a high standard. I didn’t want to be a rhodie- I don’t run marathons- he might think me indisciplined- that’s fine- why should I care ?

I have fallen short of his expectations many times - he made a face - I shrugged it off and moved on. The next class I read and came - he made a different face - still didn’t matter really cause I was reading for me. Just because he wasn’t some surrogate daddy figure or because he wasn’t in love with every student didn’t mean I didn’t learn stuff in his class.

I’m sorry you want his approval this much but don’t want to earn it or maybe you just aren’t able to. That’s just life though.

I know what empathy means. I disagree with you on whether it is useful or even helpful to students in a university setting. I think students would be a lot better off if fewer professors projected their nonsense onto them and cried with them and tried to be friends and "cool young adult" and or the inverse- projected their nonsense onto them and do things based on emotion and showed favoritism for no reason other than feeling sorry for someone or relating to particular students.

Students are not babies in diapers who need to be consoled. And even if they did need some "parental guidance" they are hardly at the stage of development where pure empathy would do the job. The job of a university professor is in part to teach that in the professional world- no one wants to be your mommy or daddy- they just want to do their work and get on with it.

17- 18 year olds are not 10 year olds. When a 10 year old tells you he messed up- you can be a little indulgent and treat him kindly and teach him right from wrong and give him a hug. When that same kid is messing up at 18- you know that something has gone wrong in the intervening 8 years. With a more developed brain, the young adult is supposed to be able to think carefully about short-term v long long-term interests, plan his time, and think about the consequences of his actions on other people. Excusing and indulging him then is telling him there are no consequences to his actions. the compassionate, good parent thing to do is to hold him accountable. It will make him a better adult.

You dont read and prepare for class- you will get less out of it than those who do. You cheat in examinations- you will face consequences, you half ass an assignment or a paper- you will get poor grades. Tell me why that is unfair? What exactly prevents any student from being able to do those things? Does that not teach students precisely the kind of professionalism that will be expected from them at work? does that not actually put students' long-term interests in learning the law well and to a high standard over the professors need to be immediately popular?

1. Just to be clear, I was responding to the comment that Sudhir's defenders have "no notion" about the meaning of empathy.

2. With that priliminary clarification out of the way, here are my thoughts. Apologies for the long answer.

3. Empathy is when somebody in a position of power (and in the context of higher education, often a professor or an administrator or sometimes both) connects with the genuine struggles of a student (or students) facing what many universities in the west call extenuating or mitigating circumstances (i.e., circumstances beyond their control) and propose or implement measures designed, not to get them away from doing the work or making the task disproportionately easy for them, but which take into account that, because of the extenuating circumstances of that student, doing that thing under the exact same conditions as students who didn't face extenuating circumstances may not be reasonable. As an example, suppose an exam were to be held on 5th May and a student who was to take the exam experienced the death of a loved-one on the first, that student should be able to take the exam instead at the next available opportunity (maybe August, when the resits for those who failed the exam in the May sitting have to take it again), without any penalties applied because of what happened. Empathy doesn't involve letting the student off, as you can see, nor does it involve accepting the student's explanation at face value. It involves making clear that many everyday things (e.g., a common headcold) aren't going to make the cut in terms of working as extenuating circumstances (because the world doesn't revolve around an individual student), in the case of something that would prima facie make the cut, verifying the claim for a change of conditions in a reasonable, respectful way (returning to the example of the 1st May death and the 5th May exam, suppose the 5th May exam happened in an exam season lasting from 5th May to 1st June, giving the affected student until the end of exan to submit the appropriate verification documents that will prove her claim) and changing conditions accordingly. Empathy (when it is actually empathy) in higher education will only work when there is a mutual understanding on part of the student and the teacher/administrator that certain processes have to be followed, deviations are the exception rather than the rule, that a case for those deviations must be established to a high standard of proof, that all cases arguing for a deviation won't make the cut, establishing a boundary or threshold for what does and that there are respectful protocols to follow even when verifying them (e.g., setting a reasonable deadline for extenuating circumstances by the administration, and the student honouring that deadline). For everyday classes that work on the 'cold calling' principle, that may involve establishing a protocol where the teacher must be informed as far in advance as possible (maybe don't set a prescribed time, but suggested 24 hours if you can) in writing that a student hasn't been able to do the preparation because of reasons 1, 2 and 3, with a proper explanation of those reasons. This could also involve coming up with a prescription (e.g., only three incidents per student will be permitted). If the student didn't do this, they should expect to be cold-called and taken to task for not abiding by these.

4. Empathy also would involve a shared understanding between student and teacher/administrator that, even in cases of students facing circumstances beyond their control, there are certain things that one shouldn't do. For example, a student whose case is on the boundary (maybe he has caring responsibilities for an elderly relative and balancing that with his studies is causing him to face mental health difficulties), he shouldn't use Chatgpt to generate his end-of-term submissions. Much better to reach out for help (maybe even make an extenuating circumstances claim), see how he can be supported to complete the same workload, the same difficulty level of workload under as similar conditions to those not facing those circumstances as possible, by his university. Again, empathy of this kind only works when there is a shared acceptance of the legitimacy of rules and processes by all parties.

5. Leniency, on the other hand, is completely different. It is where the presumption is in favour of changing the quantity of the workload expected, the difficulty level or quality of the workload expected and often the conditions under which that workload is completed. For example, a professor who decides that a common cold experienced by one student between 10th to 14th April in a period ending 23rd April (when the assignment is due) would mean that (a) a deadline change had to be made at all; and (b) that deadline change must apply to all students.

6. Leniency also involves subscribing to a presumption in favour of the school of thought that people are victims of their circumstances, and therefore setting a low bar for what extenuating circumstances are. For example, many good universities don't accept 'computer problems' as extenuating circumstances and specifically forbid those considering extenuating circumstance claims from granting such claims. Yes, computers do crash. We know that. But if the assignment was due on 23rd April and you have been working on it since the 8th, why didn't you make appropriate use of backup technology? Why, for example, did you not take appropriate care to save your work multiple times (particularly that which was the output of periods of vigorous composition) on external drives? Yes, submission portals for online assignments can be slow in periods of high traffick. You may have known that. So why, when your assignment was due on 11:59pm of 23rd April, are you attempting to upload at 11:58 and 45 seconds, failing, submitting at 12:05am and claiming extenuating circumstances when a deduction is slapped on you? Could you not have done that (submitting your work) perhaps a few hours (maybe up to a day or so) earlier? Yes, several assignments might be due on the same day (again, 23rd April, 11:59pm). For Assignment A, why didn't you prioritise properly? Why didn't you remember that more students were taking the course for which it was an assessment, and upload your completed work a little earlier/why didn't you complete the work earlier? Why did you give more priority to Assignment B than A? Why did you start Assignments A and B five days later than Assignment C, knowing before that all three were due on 23rd April at 11:59pm? Yes, again, portals do crash, that's fine. Your three assignments A, B and C were due on 23rd April, you study at a flashy uni, the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans banded together (along with the paid assistance of Belgian renegades) and carried out a massive DDOS attack on your uni's submission portal on the 14th to access experimental data that the Physics department students are working on, meaning submission portals etc. are all down. Do you get new, extended deadlines? Of course you do! Leniency would involve not asking or considering any of these questions, or just surface-level consideration.

You do know how to engage in name-calling but you don't know what information to give that is relevant. At which institution is he doing his PhD? And even if he were at the archives (I'll take your word for it), that doesn't necessarily give an indication of what institution his base is, does it?

Mrinal takes the cake. Absolute GOAT. Never met someone with such a clear grasp on the law, to be able to communicate with such clarity, and yet to be so human and humble. Had him for IPC, it was genuinely a life-changing course. I've never looked at the law the same way since him–the way he reads judgements, the way he explains rationale and policy, the way he points out loopholes in the law and the temporality of procedures. He made me fall in love with the law.

Not that I know. Srijoni has taken some sort of fellowship. The other two I am not sure about, but certainly not back to JGLS. Prabhash is the only person I know who have returned to JGLS, but he had to move away earlier only because his SAU lien did not get renewed. Otherwise, people who leave JGLS tend to stay away for good, based on my limited knowledge.

The first name is Sudhanshu Kumar. He was at NALSAR for 10 years and taught courses on Company Law, Capital Markets and Competition Law. He has published extensively on Competition Law and Policy, which is why NLSIU offered him an Associate Professor position in 2023.

Pranav is a 2017 BA,LLB alum from NALSAR and only taught there for 2 years. He is very diligent and friendly with students. He had taught Law of Evidence, Criminal Law and Administrative Law and is getting the same subjects at NLSIU.

Sid.C needs no introduction for folks at NLSIU. At NALSAR, he has taught Constitutional Law, Comparative Public Law, Legal Philosophy and Statutory Interpretation among other things over a decade. He has just returned to NLSIU a few months ago, so current students may not have noticed him as yet.

I've had the good fortune of being taught by fantastic profs at NLS- Prof TS, Prof. Nigam, Prof Mrinal, Prof Sudhir, Prof RS, Prof Mihir, Prof Ambasta, Prof Sahana, Prof Sudhanshu, Prof Raag, Prof Ashritha, Prof. Atreyee, Prof. Saurabh- all in no particular order. Each of them have in some way fundamentally changed the way I view the world and law and I couldn't be more grateful for this privilege