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?
The old guard, with their fingers firmly buried in this jam jar, seem more than a little insecure. They’re throwing out one ridiculous excuse after another for why the proposed enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction to ₹10 crore is supposedly a bad idea.
The award for the most absurd argument goes to the DHCBA, which claims this reform will increase traffic. Traffic. 😂
Who’s been enjoying these dharnas from the comfort of their office via YouTube? I know I have.
Let’s have some fun. List the most absurd arguments you’ve heard against this proposed reform.
And to the nepos and bootlickers..this probably isn’t going to be a safe space!