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?
Do you see the AG taking notes in every hearing? TM? How about ASM? The issue about KS not being there while the other side is arguing is a sad story telling of the traditional Indian senior's practice -- which GSN etc. are changing, sure.
He does not read, yes... I don't know what prep he does the morning of, but he is an effective lawyer; has been since before most of us were born. You talk of 370, ED, Umar Khalid, or the SIR cases as if his arguments will change anything. As anyone who's read the Umar Khalid judgment will know, most of these judgments on contentious political issues are bereft of legal reasoning. The SC has been politicised and at this point, KS, AMS are the only ones from the old bastion whose voices cannot be silenced by the Bench... for now.
Politics does.
Secondly, most of what get reported are political cases.
Thirdly, he's at a stature where you engage him when you know it's a very uphill battle or a lost cause. And therefore, the fallacy lies here: does he lose all his cases, or does he get cases which have very slim chances of success to begin with?