1. Nobody is saying he is perfect. That saga has been gone over thousands of times. Most reasonable people will agree that his decisions during that time were far from perfect.

2. Get names right, my friend. It is "NLAT", not "LNAT". LNAT is the equivalent admission test of CLAT used by many UK law schools for admission purposes (including both Oxford and Cambridge).

3. If you think Sudhir does so much bullshit, be careful with what causes you confusion. If he reads Legally India, he might get ideas into his head. For all you know, he might attempt a second withdrawal from CLAT, and try to take another leaf out of JGLS's book, by partnering with the LNAT Consortium to create an "LNAT India" (similar to JGLS's "LSAT India") to show as though he is copying (matching the standards of) the British.

He can, on occasion, come across as a bit abrasive, it is true (but so did Lee Kuan Yew, and see what he did to benefit Singapore (an unfortunate example, I know, considering the subject of our discussion is a scholar of a democratic constitution, but this cropped up in my head, will try to think of a better one)). But maybe this is the result of a less serious character flaw than you think. Maybe he just finds it hard to grasp that what is obvious to him isn't obvious to others? I also don't quite understand where this "he alone knows what is good for education" stuff is coming from? As far as educational methods are concerned (e.g., getting students to read lots of theory and political philosophy), might it not be that he has seen what he (and perhaps many others) believes to have worked at other institutions (particularly Oxford), thinks it is worth emulating and, in line with what was said above, finds it hard to grasp why others don't get it (the fact that this is an established method of good teaching/learning) as well?

This question is a bit symplistic, if I am being very honest. This is because there are a number of possible interpretations of that question, especially of the phrase "academic perspective", each of which could be equally valid. Therefore, in order to help people better answer your question, it would be of the greatest assistance if you could clarify which one (or more) of the interpretations you are going by. The ones I have thought of (others, please add whatever I have missed) are:

1. Academic standards (whether marking of projects, exams and the like is strict/confirmation of absence of grade inflation, amount of studying that needs to be done per week/per day, quality of faculty (as classroom teachers), academic - extracurricular activities balance).

2. How good the NLSIU curriculum is at preparing for a career in academia in India and beyond.

3. Combination of no. 1 above and how well academics who work there (i.e., the faculty) mentor/guide students in terms of their (non-academia-related) professional career aspirations after law school (which include, but are certainly not limited to, working in India in a law firm job, working in litigation, working abroad (which in most cases means London) in a law firm).

4. Faculty qualifications (how many Rhodes Scholars, how many LLM + PhD graduates among the faculty, how many of the faculty combine impressive academic qualifications with industry experience) and research reputation (quality of publications, number of publications in reputed journals and so on).

I am aware of his views and do not agree with all of them. The most important one being that he alone knows what is good for education. I didn't find him a good teacher either and before his defenders jump in the fray, I still scored the highest grade in his paper as well as that of most other teachers who taught me.

Very rigorous. Even social science is taken seriously where you have various original texts to study. When you study sociology, for example, you'll discuss a text over 4-5 hours. In NLS however, texts are crammed and sometimes, you finish 2 texts in a day.

, someone who isn't a student but on the other side

He is a great teacher. He is also fearless in calling out bullshit (not something we can say about most people), in regards to what a university education is supposed to do. He has the right ideas re. teaching of, to use his words, "fundamental first principles". We need more people like him in Indian academia.

Good: Highly qualified profs, the curriculum is good and will give you an edge throughout your career.

Bad: Very strict admin, tough deadlines, not enough space to house so many people on campus.

Ugly: A lot of politics and backstabbing, students don't have a voice.

do ask if you have any specific questions.