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?
This past month, the admin has decided that the best way for a uni to represent in a moot is to have the minimum number of members. Under the guise of reimbursement, they have decided that any moot, national or international, would have the least number of members required. You will soon see HNLU at Vis with three people because, well that's the golden number to moot successfully.
All of this so that they don't have to reimburse the entire team. Now, reimbursement has always been for 3 members only, no matter what moot. However, now to "protect the uni's image", instead of - I dont know- supporting students in their endeavours, they will send the exact number of people they will reimburse.
What this clearly and embarrassingly depicts is the lack of awareness and knowledge of this administration. While everything is money, sometimes it feels like most of this has to come out of their individual pockets. What is more embarrassing is that HNLU boasts of receiving Rs.100 lakhs every year solely for moots and conferences.
Where is this money going? We will never know.
But what we do know is happening, in a campus where basic amenities are often ignored, is the inauguration of the "Inner Circle", a faculty only area. A circle whose outer circles keep getting renovated and inaugurated.
Moreover, HNLU - State as per Article 12 - has suddenly found the urge to look into the attendance schematics of students I. e. 2 days before the end semester examinations. While the DHC judgement on attendance stays, what is the HNLU's creative solution to disturb students, you may ask? Fill undertakings where you waive your rights away. You have to note down your reason and sign that it would be a conditional permission and that you can never claim equity, right, or relief. All of this two days before the exams actually start.
We haven't received our admit cards for the exams, but have been notified about all the changes at a point where our hands are tied.
Now I wish this is where things ended, but students have also been honoured with proctorial proceedings for having a plate from the mess, calling the ambulance, and many more😌
Further, our hostel wardens have also made it their mission to visit us at 3 AM in our rooms and break windows if we do not wake up to them knocking. Our dear Registrar has also highlighted that wardens do not have to apologise for breaking windows of students rooms.
Seems like Administration has a clear plan towards how this esteemed educational institution will function.
About the MCC rules, it's almost as if the faculty convener is keeping close track of what happens on LI - sudden praise of the university mooting culture and bam release rules that will make mooting so so much more difficult. 3 member Vis teams don't stand a slightest chance against 15 member contingents that actually make a citation - oh and mind you, this rule was notified just a week or two after the HNLU contingent (6 member team) placed as runners up at Vis east - for the first ever time!
This institution needs a full fledged cleanse where professors that put their egos above student welfare are ousted. There are so so so many things wrong with how things are done in HNLU - I really wish someone reading this can suggest a way for us to report this to authorities that can look into it. I know firsthand of people that have considered ICC and UGC complaints - but the fear of career ending consequences is what stops them. Every day of living in HNLU is not too far from living in hell.
Hit and keep hitting where it hurts. Follow your and their monies. And the answers will emerge. Also it's not a sprint. Aquire and nurture the stamina for a marathon.
The Registrar of HNLU had earlier indicated that taking more than three members would not be an issue during the SBA board meeting - a rare occasion when the Vice Chancellor interacts with students, though often only to speak at length without meaningful engagement. However, just two days before the end-semester exams, the administration abruptly decided to enforce the member cap. Poor hnlu kids after winning so many moots this year, this is what they are getting in return from admin.
This repeated pattern of last-minute decisions seems designed to leave students with no real opportunity to question or resist.
Furthermore, when the Student Body President raised a reasonable request to reshuffle faculty convenors to ensure smoother functioning of committees, the response from faculty members was unexpectedly hostile. They all started aggressively yelling on sba members like they are some criminals and the concern here is that this has been the case since forever. Whenever anyone goes to admin for even a small work, they would 1st enjoy bullying the kids.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that HNLU students seriously need to take a stand and address these ongoing issues.
I need tips on how to deal with stupid people who have no clue about certain things. Am I supposed to explain these unaware people how moots work now??? 😭😭😭
Call an expert for an in person session?
"We have to buy bouquet and fund their travels and you know put in money "
Let's do a workshop?
"Make it zero budget"
HNLU Admin has mastered the skill of public relations to some extent. The only thing that they managed to pull off in the last few years is signalling to the outside world that the University is functioning at its best. However, it is as dismantled internally as it could be.
The students work tirelessly to get everything for themselves, be it moot court achievements, conferences, publications, and internships. It's not a hidden fact that when it comes to a PPO, a lot depends on the relationship between the concerned law firm and the University. The students have faced this for a long time that despite doing extremely well, we don't get a fruitful response.
The Admin has its stance clear - we won't invite any firm to collaborate; the firm should pitch us their ideas. I don't know, but are we Harvard or something? The placements are in shambles; be it Batch 2025, 2026, or 2027, every batch has taken the heat. But but the Admin believes that the firm should come to us. All they do is act disrespectful to anyone and everyone!
----------------------------------------------
Mandatory affidavit requiring students to abstain from participation in protests, demonstrations, or collective action against the University.
Provision allows for strict disciplinary action, including expulsion, for violation.
Raises concerns regarding:
Freedom of speech and expression
Right to dissent within institutional spaces
Disproportionate disciplinary consequences
2. Hostel Administration & Privacy Concerns
-----------------------------------------------
Unannounced and intrusive hostel inspections, including early morning entries.
Reported instances of:
Forced access (e.g., breaking of windows/doors where access not granted)
Regular corridor surveillance and monitoring
Lack of prior notice for inspections, affecting privacy and dignity of students.
Wardens (who are also faculty) engaging in frequent and unnecessary monitoring, including questioning of personal movements.
Confiscation of personal belongings and appliances without clear rules or justification.
3. Conflict of Roles: Faculty as Wardens
----------------------------------------
Faculty members simultaneously acting as academic evaluators and hostel wardens.
Creates:
Conflict of interest
Perceived risk of bias in academic evaluation
Discomfort among students in interacting freely in residential spaces
4. Entry–Exit Restrictions and Student Autonomy
-----------------------------------------------
Strict in-timing regulations and limited access to campus facilities (e.g., library restrictions).
Restrictions justified on grounds of safety/health, but:
Reduce student autonomy
Limit academic flexibility, especially for late-night study
5. Basic Infrastructure Deficiencies
------------------------------------
Poor quality drinking water, leading students to purchase external water despite paying for facilities.
Mess-related issues:
Declining food quality
Hygiene concerns (including insects reported)
Delays in mess rebates
Weak Wi-Fi connectivity, affecting academic work.
Other concerns:
Poor road conditions
Inadequate sheds and campus facilities
Under-equipped or inaccessible gym
6. Healthcare and Emergency Infrastructure
------------------------------------------
Absence of on-campus doctor / medical staff
Lack of proper infrastructure in the ambulance (no oxygen/life supporting supply) or an emergency response system inside the ambulance
Raises concerns regarding student safety and emergency preparedness
7. Academic Concerns (Faculty Shortage)
---------------------------------------
Severe shortage of faculty, leading to:
Same faculty teaching multiple unrelated subjects
Reduced academic depth and engagement
Impacts overall quality of legal education
8. Administrative Accountability & Student Engagement
---------------------------------------------------------
Reported instances of:
Dismissive responses from administration on safety concerns
Refusal to acknowledge or apologise for administrative lapses
Perception that:
Issues are treated as non-obligatory services rather than institutional responsibilities
Student concerns are not meaningfully addressed
9. Suppression of Student Expression
------------------------------------
Instances of:
Cultural/creative performances being censored on perceived criticism of administration
Student bodies/clubs adopting self-censorship due to administrative pressure
Creates a chilling effect on:
Free expression
Academic and cultural discourse
10. Disciplinary Environment & Fear Culture
-----------------------------------------------
Students raising concerns (e.g., via emails/IRL) reportedly facing:
Proctorial notices
Action based on tone or communication style
Leads to:
Hesitation in raising legitimate grievances
Reduced transparency and dialogue
11. Unnecessary spending on New faculty chambers, Inner Circle and other facilities that disproportionately improve lives and conditions for Faculty and staff at the detriment of Students. When students' needs are more pertinent.
Make it make sense
This feels like a prank atp
Good going - this is now just not a conversation between us. But even majority of the faculty knows this thread is going on - on legally india.
"Dear Members of the Student Bar Association (2025–2026) and outgoing batch of 2026 of UG & PG,
As the academic year has ended this week, it is both appropriate and instructive to reflect upon the tenure of the outgoing Student Bar Association/ batch of 2026 one marked, without doubt, by ambition in articulation and enthusiasm in projection.
The Association’s engagement with “macro-level analysis” and its professed foresight on a wide spectrum of institutional issues has been, at the very least, noteworthy. One must acknowledge the consistency with which large-scale visions were presented, even if their translation into measurable outcomes occasionally remained… aspirational.
It is equally pertinent to note that, despite repeated assurances of maintaining decorum in the campus and at University functions, the year witnessed unfortunate instances of indiscipline among constituents. The expectation that SBA leadership would effectively regulate such conduct appears to have been an evolving objective rather than an achieved standard.
From the administration’s perspective, there has never been any hesitation in encouraging innovation or new propositions. However, as you may now better appreciate, governance requires not only imagination but also a careful calibration of feasibility, legal constraints, institutional discipline, and, importantly, the confidence of parents who entrust us with their wards.
The numerous meetings held over the year, along with discussions on deliverables, reflect a sustained engagement particularly on those issues that could withstand the test of practical implementation. The pursuit of other, more ambitious promises continues to remain an instructive exercise in understanding the gap between intent and execution.
As your mentors and administrators, we consider such experiences as integral to leadership learning.
On a concluding note, we extend our very best wishes to the outgoing team and to all the outgoing batch of students. May you carry forward not only the zeal to envision change around you, but also the wisdom to implement it with responsibility, discipline, and foresight.
Wishing you all good health, meaningful opportunities, and enduring success. Not just the last five years but always HNLU will be your emotional space even at a distance.
Yours affectionately,
Vice Chancellor"
SERIOUSLY??????
I don't understand which part was impractical?
Just tell me honestly, what's was non-executable here ? Asking better water and food quality so that half of the students do not get admitted to hospital? or Seeking nurse's assistant after 5:30 pm or just ice for treating wounds when uni claims to ensure 24 hour medical support via nurse? or Asking for faculties who actually knows to teach, or discussion rooms for students? or Asking for merely permission to let's 3+ member team do international moot (without funds of the 'extra' member and minimal namesake fund for the 3 member btw). Or to ensure less arbitrariness in marking by incompetent panel of faculties, seeking mid sem instead for moot court exercise of 25 marks filled with numerous loopholes??
Wt! was unreasonable here ?
This is not even half of the practical reasonable demands which have been left unheard by admin.
Even in the so called "discussion" with admin, it is a well known fact that VC is the only one who speaks non stop for like 3/4th part of meeting and then when it comes to students to seek practical things to be done, they are being shouted upon by registrar and other deans.
The sheer miserable state of affairs.
And the point that students can't even do anything here. As admin possess arbitrary power enough to take down whole career of a students in uni merely by putting proto on some antu jhantu cause.
They have even summoned students for proto and punished them merely coz they filed RTI to know something about University.
At this point only alums can really step in to do something. Please save hnlu. It's my humble request to hold uni accountable and not let it's arbitrary power go on. Please!!
This VC ▮▮▮. Writing such a demeaning email towards both the SBA and Batch26 is a shame and tells a lot why this university doesn't progress. Because People at the top have such thinking.
Will this VC have guts to reply if we ask him what he has done. What's his report of the year? He's easily assessing the student community for everything (which honestly no one asked him for) but will he able to let us assess him. NO! #removeVCV
The contents of the communication are not only disappointing but deeply troubling. The attempt to rationalize administrative inaction under the guise of “feasibility” and “legal constraints” is both unconvincing and evasive. It is entirely reasonable to ask: what exactly is considered unfeasible? Is it the basic academic autonomy of allowing students to choose their honours papers? Is it the recruitment of qualified subject experts? Or is it the provision of fundamental infrastructure and amenities expected from a residential university?
Students have repeatedly witnessed arbitrary and regressive decisions that undermine both academic growth and professional preparedness. The removal of attendance considerations for moot participation, the lack of serious engagement with placement concerns, and the absence of a supportive academic environment reflect a systemic disregard for student priorities.
The administration’s portrayal of meetings as consultative platforms is misleading. In reality, these spaces offer little room for genuine dialogue. Students are either not given the opportunity to speak or are ignored when they do. More concerning is the reported conduct during the last meeting, where the SBA President, upon raising structural concerns and suggesting administrative reshuffling, was met not with reasoned discussion but with hostility and remarks that can only be described as intimidatory.
With the recent disclosure of documents, policy proposals and communications by the student president, the question of accountability has become clearer. Students have consistently acted in good faith, submitting proposals with the genuine intent of constructive implementation. The administration’s continued inaction reflects not constraints, but a lack of responsiveness and commitment to student welfare.
Further, the presence of double standards and instances of inappropriate personal remarks directed at students raise serious concerns about professionalism and institutional ethics.
The situation demands urgent and meaningful reform. It is imperative that those in positions of authority are held accountable, and that structural changes are considered to restore trust, transparency, and academic integrity. The future and legacy of the institution depend on the willingness to acknowledge failures and undertake comprehensive corrective measures.