What keeps India’s hereditary elites perennially relevant is not some extraordinary reservoir of talent, but the sort of unquestioning reverence embodied in messages like yours. People such as yourself are not innocent bystanders to nepotism; you are its indispensable accomplices. You confer distinction where none has been demonstrably earned, and then wonder why mediocrity wrapped in pedigree continues to flourish.

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.

Becoming a barrister or solicitor in the United Kingdom, even armed with a Cambridge degree and all the attendant prestige it confers, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, place one on the same plane as a truly accomplished and renowned Senior Advocate. To suggest otherwise is not merely an error of judgment; it is to diminish and trivialise a designation whose stature has been earned through decades of distinction, not bestowed by academic branding or foreign qualification.

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.

Yes so GB is not a good lawyer. Right. No merit but sheer nepotism to become a barrister. No merit but sheer nepotism to became one of the most sought after arbitration counsels in india. Sure. Y'all first gen ▮▮▮ dont have a winner mindset. All u do is look down and bring down others. Y'all are ▮▮▮ who would never achieve anything in life and complain about nepotism day in and out

The question is whether those commenting here are first-gen lawyers who are meritorious and with similar elite educational credentials, or first-gen lawyers who are mediocre and from the chhapri segment.

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.

The lesser said of this nepo, the better, TBH.

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.