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?
Institutions will now pay a fine under the "research and professional practices" criterion. A new formula that takes into account the quantity or proportion of retracted publications will be used to determine the score. These modifications are intended to encourage research integrity and sustainable practices in India's higher education establishments.
In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) brought by C. Chellamuthu, the Madras High Court temporarily halted the release of the NIRF 2025 rankings. The plea claimed that without any independent verification, universities were falsifying information about research funding, teacher salaries, and student strength in order to obtain higher rankings.
The NIRF only uses self-reported data from the institutions, according to the court's ruling, in contrast to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which evaluates data through expert committees. The petitioner contended that this lack of verification would have a detrimental effect on educational quality by enabling institutions with poor standards to deceptively advertise themselves.
https://www.jagranjosh.com/news/nirf-ranking-2025-new-category-and-negative-marking-introduced-key-highlights-changes-here-180695