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?
https://www.instagram.com/p/DXJtO_Fia2K/
Context: An LI thread from earlier this year, which points to an interview that unravels this man, and the harsh truth about the state of things in India - https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/473915-the-gnlu-gaurab-banerji-interview-on-youtube-a-conversation-only-some-can-have
The interview and the commentary in this link is - IMO - essential listening and reading for anyone even considering a career in litigation in India.
It’s only the former category that is comparable.
If they belong to this category and have been denied the privileges he received while being similarly placed, then they have reason to criticise.
As for your rather careless invocation of the term “chapri”, one is entitled to ask precisely what, or whom, you had in mind. The category remains conveniently nebulous. Are you referring to JGLS? To the Faculty of Law, GLC or ILS? To NLS and the other NLUs? Or perhaps to Nirma, LPU, Amity and their ilk? The ambiguity is striking. If you intend to cast aspersions, have the courage and intellectual honesty to do so plainly. Come clean. Vagueness is often the refuge of those unwilling to defend the implications of their own words.
Let us separate fact from fantasy.
I have no difficulty conceding that:
A. He seems a perfectly agreeable chap .. a chip off the old block, perhaps.
B. He can articulate a reasonably coherent argument in fluent English.
Fine. But civilisation has never regarded basic competence and good manners as qualifications for greatness.
What he manifestly is not, however, is:
A. A leading Indian jurist.
B. A distinguished or internationally renowned figure in arbitration.
These are not titles to be bestowed out of filial affection or social deference. They are earned through an exceptional body of work, landmark cases, scholarly influence, and international recognition. So by all means, produce the facts, the figures, the accolades, the jurisprudential contributions. Where are they?
Or are we once again expected to mistake a surname for substance?
One of the more depressing features of Indian public life is this almost feudal instinct to prostrate oneself before inherited prestige. Merit is assumed, excellence imputed, eminence proclaimed .. all because the right genes and the right dinner invitations are involved. That may satisfy the courtiers. It does not constitute evidence.