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?
Furthermore IRCCL also gets good amount of articles.
In that article, there is no analysis as such. Saying that blogs don't necessarily need in-depth analysis implies that you don't know how to write a blog. Legal news mainly involves reiteration of a judgment or any other legal update without analysis. Blogs are written to criticize, appreciate, and support your opinion with reasons. Any literature written on a topic is to add something new.
Blogs such as iPleaders are an information repository and there you don’t need in-depth analysis. It is not wrong to be an information repository, mind you. Infact, iPleaders has helped me in quickly learning about a topic / getting to know a overview of any topic.
However if you’re talking about ICL, that is known for its critical pieces. Herein, if we get descriptive pieces, then it defeats the purpose.
Would like to know other’s views on this.
Their editorial standards are top notch. This one time I submitted a piece thinking it was the possibly the best piece I’ve written, only to be proved otherwise, supported by a granular deconstruction of the piece.
After reading the editor’s comments, I couldn’t disagree with him as it all made sense.
Diverging from the subject matter of the blog, another place where I’ve received proper and structured constructive criticism from the editor is Gautam Bhatia’s IndConLawPhil.
But yes, I agree with OP.
Know them personally as well and couldn’t agree more w you lol. Goes on to prove a good batch rank is nothing more than a show of your rote-learning prowess.
It’s not just one article or topic per se, but the general trend.
Like today for example, I stumbled upon an article on the CCI’s new penalty guidelines, written by some SLS folks.
Upon reading through it, there’s honestly no ‘critical’ analysis of the topic. All I see is a descriptive and analytical piece, slapping information from judgements, domestic and abroad.
My observations are not regarding this particular article, but a general overview that I’ve seen over the years, while reading/researching for any particular topic.
A question to associates or law students themselves - due you rely on it anymore? Or is it just me.