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?
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.
---