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?
“We direct the Government of India and all states/UTs/Universities etc. to disassociate 3 of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which involves public funds”
https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-ncert-social-science-textbook-corruption-in-judiciary-suo-motu-contempt-525957
How should we read this? Does this mean dissociate only from Alok Prasanna, or also his organisation? Because another faction of Vidhi (Arghya Sengupta’s) keeps very good relations with both the Modi govt and the judiciary. They get tons of work from the Modi govt (which is their biggest funder) and they invite many current and former SC judges to their events.
There could be 2 solutions to this ambiguity:
1. Alok resigns from Vidhi and Arghya fully takes control. Because no statement yet from Arghya that he is standing with Alok. Silence so far.
2. A correction to the order exempting Vidhi. Because the court order also says: “This order shall be subject to their approaching this court for modification with an explanation.”