What this platform has allowed to be done to at least one NLU VC is disgusting. There seems to be nothing bad that you cannot say about him. And most of these allegations dont pass the sniff test.

I honestly think the problem is that the moderators themselves seem to be students who lack maturity. They seem to be unable to behave in a fair manner. Perhaps some adults in the room need to step in to moderate.

Being a professor is not a public role. They didnt run for elections and they arent public personalities by and large. Zero professors anywhere have signed up to the profession thinking their students will write nonsense about them anonymously on websites. And almost none of them care about anonymous praise either. If students want to make personal attacks fair game- they should know that whats good for the goose is good for the gander. How would you like it if your worst moment in the classroom- everytime you were prepared or not prepared for class, every stupid answer you gave on a test or every plagiarised assignment you turned in were broadcast on a website? Surely if youre attending a public institution youre at least partially subsidised by tax payer funds. the same exact rationale that exists for public shaming of professors exists for that of students.

If there are genuine greivances- against scam courses or professors- the appropriate place to bring it up is with your VC/ Dean. Follow an internal process.

youre fundamentally misunderstanding what university education is all about. Its not a tuition class from school where youre made to remember mindless information through repetition. University education is about developing your own skills and knowledge and professors can merely serve as guides. In the best universities in the world you hardly ever have lectures- what you have a small classes and discussions where the professor guides and questions the students and in law schools- uses the socratic method.

Its not the professors job to make you know the information. Its your job. Its the professors job to know the information himself and to be available for guidance, do the needful in classes, evaluate your work. Thats it.

You wont become a good lawyer if its done in any other way. Cause a legal education doesnt end at university.

If youre not able to keep up with that- maybe you shouldnt be a lawyer- maybe you want an easier less challenging life- go work in a bank or run a restaurant.

That's middle school logic. If you did go to the best institutions in the world, you would know that not all the teachers are good at 'conveying knowledge'. Adult students make their own efforts instead of sitting and waiting for spoonfeeding. There are good teachers, there are teachers who will improve but a mature student will find ways to learn from all of them.

Literally, law school is the place for theory. A student may be too interested in acquiring skills to be interested in getting an education. Being a professor is not a 'public role'. These people didn't run for election. They are just offering a service to people who don't respect them or their privacy. The problem with this website is that it allows people who know nothing about education to come and hold forth about it.

Totally agree. As an aspiring teacher, I have been really conflicted to join academia now seeing how poorly students talk. Imagine walking into a class after reading all this. Students have become teachers of their teachers. While no profession is above scrutiny, the manner in which educators are discussed betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of their role and challenges. Teaching itself is a life long learning process. But in online spaces and informal discussions here, we often see a growing tendency to reduce professors to caricatures: outdated, disconnected, or merely obstacles rather than enablers of learning. Such narratives fail to acknowledge the structural limitations within which they operate: e.g. underfunded institutions, overwhelming administrative burdens, or the ever-increasing expectation to publish at a pace that leaves little room for genuine intellectual engagement. I totally believe being mentored by many of the silent workers that while teachers are not infallible, they are indispensable.

Instead of anonymous posting, students and disgruntled faculty should formally complain if they have issues or are unhappy with their colleagues. Defaming people anonymously is cowardice.

If you're in a public role, you open yourself to the scrutiny of people. A person may have Post Doc from the best university of the planet, but it means nothing if they are unable to convey their knowledge to the students. A person may be an expert in the field, but s/he may be too much theory oriented for a law school.

It's good to debate and discuss openly, rather than talking in hush hush tones on WhatsApp groups.

While I agree with you whole-heartedly about the distasteful nature of such conversations, it is also true that those have always been a part of this platform. If anything, the platform has thrived on such gossip and trolling. Which is why such trolling passes regular muster of the moderators. LI never had such lofty goals as you are ascribing to it.

---

Gossip, insults, and negativity often draw more attention than constructive discussions. However, I am certain that Legally India was never intended to be a platform for fueling frustration and cynicism.

Lately, we have observed certain anonymous voices attempting to pass judgment on professors who have dedicated decades—often far longer than the lifespan of these commentators themselves—to academia and legal scholarship. These individuals freely opine on everything under the sun, despite lacking the expertise or qualification to do so. Their motives are often transparent: promoting a select few while unfairly maligning others, particularly those who are making significant contributions to legal education and scholarship.

The pattern is clear—selective praise for certain individuals or institutions, coupled with unwarranted attacks on others (e.g., NUJS, NLUJ, NLUD vs. NLS; Sudhir biopic, CLC bashing etc). A robust academic discourse thrives on reasoned debate and informed critique, not anonymous potshots driven by hidden agendas. Let’s not allow such divisive narratives to overshadow the true purpose of this platform.

---