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?
💯
If you post such remarks on LI, you get downvoted by woke socialist students who have no clue about money. Now the SC has said the same thing!
1. The privileges provided to SC Judges are by definition, not ‘freebies’. They have worked hard and risen to the rank to deserve those privileges. These are afforded to them, not because of who they are but because of their rank and achievement and in support of the work that they do.
2. Loan Write off does not mean that the loan is ‘waived-off’, write-off means that the loan is written off the books and converted into NPA so they can initiate recovery procedures.
I’ll recommend you to please read critically before presenting your case, not only your comment comes across as juvenile and inept but reeks of the same mindless non-sense that is repeated on social media by ‘influencers’
Honestly prashant bhushan should have refused to justify and simply asked the court why they saw any locus to intervene at all.