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?
Sub.: Seeking a factual report on the persons instrumental in drafting communication bearing No. BCI:D.5449/2026
Sir,
We have taken note, without the expected amusement, of a Notice purporting to emanate from a statutory regulator, in which an entire batch of law graduates has been collectively debarred, for the alleged crime of studying at an institution where, apparently, someone somewhere had an opinion. We knew that thought crime is to be punished in the current climate but being able to punish someone for their neighbours thought crime makes me covet your post (make me your padawan). This is regulatory stupidity dressed up in letterhead, and we salute the confidence it took to sign it.
In the quixotic spirit of the true factual position the Notice so solemnly claims to seek, we request the following, within three days:
1. a) The names and designations of members present, and the quorum achieved, when it was decided that natural justice is for other people.
2. b) The minutes recording the identity of the reliable sources, so we may assess whether they rank above or below rumour, astrology, vibes, and WhatsApp forwards as forms of admissible evidence. We must ensure that the zen Z virus has not infected the august regulator.
3. c) The legal opinion, if any exists, that permitted an entire batch to be punished for the alleged conduct of a few, a principle of jurisprudence we eagerly await making Bentham blush.
4. d) The name of the person principally instrumental in deciding that convocation guest lists now fall within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council, so that we have a reference to cite as an example of cooption, arbitrainess and immorality we are tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy.
We trust the Council, ever vigilant against dirty politics, shall take steps to stop the zen Z virus from spreading in it. Finally, we thank you for not using gen-AI, claude would stutter to satisfy you.
Receipt may kindly be acknowledged, capriciously, if that's more familiar.
Sure this order seems pretty weird. But what about the argument that the persons who participated in this campaign are behaving in a way that undermines (or may have the potential to undermine) the confidence of the public in the profession of advocate? What is the substantive response to that? Because the satirical letter posted in reply doesn't address that point. People might be somewhat tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy, but in the spirit of free enquiry, we must not forget J.S. Mill who reminds us in On Liberty to know the argument of the opponent like the back of our hand. I assume that this undermining/potential of undermining confidence in the profession argument is the one they'll come up with, so it's important that it be responded to.