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?
I am sure you and I are no one to comment on it.
But would they represent the right or the far right as their clients? If they keep their 'personal ideologies' out of the equation when they are representing clients would MG, say for example, represent a client wanting to criminalise homosexuality.
*Again please do not get me wrong. I have friends, family members (inner circles) who are gay. I am not questioning 'being gay' but how does it play out when personal and public is all, as Bauman would say, 'liquid'.
I really want to understand what enables the left or the centrist to align with issues that if the 'right' had committed these (as in if this was a BJP run state or a sanghi would have done this) to realign their 'personal' ideologies.
I have, in-person, witnessed this happening in a top NLU (although I do not think that the students are either left or contrist) with the exit of a favoured VC. All allegations seemed to have taken a secondary consideration.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/jessica-was-killed-by-a-tall-sikh/story-0N5fir8MoO6Hb79z358CGK_amp.html
Bottomline: When you represent a client you leave your conscience at the door. And please don’t judge people their media and PR persona.
But, given the things said on Dil Se and also perhaps knowing that MG would not align with the right, I wanted to understand what motivates them to do it. Is it merely ideology? If that is the case, how is KS or MG different from any right-wing narrative mongering?