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?
Just look at the expressions of the other interviewees as he goes on — the discomfort, however mild, is palpable.
His sweeping, uninformed disdain for the Delhi High Court, delivered with the casual arrogance of someone insulated by lineage and circumstance, is frankly juvenile. His proud admission that he can afford to walk away from paid briefs in favour of “legacy” pro bono work isn’t noble — it’s a luxury posture masquerading as principle.
This isn’t intellectual eccentricity or endearing contrarianism. It’s self-indulgence. And in the process, he manages to embarrass the Bar, himself, and everyone else in that room.
If this is meant to represent the Supreme Court Bar, it does it no favours whatsoever. One can only hope that sahibs like these are rendered extinct at the Bar.
On one point, I do agree with Gopal: far too many people have designated themselves far earlier than warranted.
I’d add Gopal to that list.
You, of course, are perfectly entitled to avoid whomever you like. But don’t insist that every other liberal adopt that same monastic boycott. Not everyone is obligated to varnish their principles with social absolutism merely to remain acceptable at the next cocktail party.
It’s a living, amendable, revisable document precisely because ideology preceded it and continues to evolve. So pretending the Constitution itself is your ideology is just a convenient shield to avoid admitting what your ideology actually is.
This faux-constitutional absolutism is the last refuge of people who want to smuggle their politics in under the banner of “neutral principles.” Which is why this line rings hollow. You do have an ideological position — everyone does — and yours peaks through your phrasing every time.
The Constitution is not your ideology.
Your ideology is your ideology.
The Constitution is simply the political artifact that ideology produced.
Call me what you want, but this ▮▮▮ came off as shallow and completely disingenuous to me...