Fair question - we had not included his previous work history in the initial version of the article. Have now updated, and it appears he'd worked in some finance companies before Vedanta: "Dua Associates before heading in-house to companies including GE Capital Services, Deutsche Bank, FedEx and International Paper, before joining Vedanta in 2015."
If indeed paid for from IPS budgets, one way of justifying this would be that it's a PR exercise for the IPS.
For the sake of PR and marketing, lots of government departments probably spend similar amounts on newspaper and billboard ads, parties and conference sponsorships, charity fun-runs, etc.
The IPS might very well see this as a worthwhile investment to attract more women (and adventuring types) into the service, and each mountain she climbs certainly gets regular media coverage so you could argue it's been pretty decent value for money...
I didn't really know Jethmalani, but I knew enough of and about him to agree that he was a bit of a complicated case on this front. Thinking out loud, as pointed out by others in the comments, most people who've met him would probably be aware of his consistently um, let's call it 'flirtatious' nature towards women.
Inappropriate, in a modern-day professional context? Yes, most probably. The 'trouble' with Jethmalani was that to many bystanders (myself included) he appeared to have the charm and age to sort of pull it off and make his flirtations appear harmless, humourous or 'colourful' banter, rather than actually serious propositions or harassment (at least the ones I've directly witnessed). In other words, it was hard to take what he said entirely seriously, and quite easy, with a shrug, to just chalk it up to being the product of another era and just as a facet of his larger-than-life personality.
That said, even though I'm not aware of anything Jethmalani has done ever having progressed beyond talk, I'm sure that in many cases even that banter wasn't welcome or perceived as charming at all by its recipient (I don't know if he ever pressed on with flirtations when he realised it was unwelcome or not received well?).
The question should be, was this kind of stuff Jethmalani's 'fault', or is everyone else (including me) equally to blame for (presumably) never calling him out on it during his lifetime (even if it might not have made a difference)?
It explicitly frees the universities from UGC rules re course structures and UGC inspections, but I think the LLB criteria are covered by the Advocates Act having given power to BCI, which applies independently from IOE.
As a policy, there's no 'vetting' of LI articles by firms before publication, but have amended the title to 'more-senior associate levels' to clarify the meaning of the headline...
Delhi confidential was incorrect it seems - Mehta has denied it in a Facebook post and the registrar has also denied he has applied:
Quote:
Editor’s Note: Responding to the report ‘A New Record’ which stated that the Delhi High Court is set to designate Advocate Tanmay Mehta as its youngest-ever Senior Advocate, K K Bhati, Registrar (Designation of Senior Advocate Secretariat), High Court of Delhi, has written saying the report is “factually incorrect and misleading” and “till date Mr Tanmay Mehta has not applied for being designated as Senior Advocate”. The error is regretted.
Fair enough - please do share some names who you think are doing great research in India.
In this case, there was the rather newsy angle that these three all got appointed to Oxford professorships, so it made sense to speak to them in more detail.
Perhaps slight hyperbole, though I'm not sure I agree- I think they are very much helping to save the world, as much as it is possible for lawyers in academia to do so. After all, these problems won't get solved without law and new thinking and scholarship on some of these issues will no doubt contribute or be part of solutions (if there are any).
1. Generally, yes, we'll probably always cover NLS a little bit more than newer colleges because there's only one NLS: it's the oldest, ranked as one of the best by most rankings, has the most alumni working in law firms and what happens at NLS (or not) matters for the greater ecosystem.
2. Right now, NLS has the most interesting narrative: A changeover in VC, potentially first NLU grad VC at own NLU, and an interim administration that seems to have derailed the appointments and internal processes. Who doesn't want to know what will happen next in that saga?
3. Sometimes other NLUs have more interesting things going on. I.e. Just in the last year or two, there have been similarly interesting and developing stories at NUJS or Rgnul that we've covered extensively, because they illustrate and are relevant to the wider education ecosystem.
We can't cover everything, but there's usually a reason that we cover the colleges we do.
If a comment is hateful or relates to gender in any way, please press the report button and we will remove it. But the comments in this thread don't appear to be personal but merely generally about the institution.
To be honest, the answers to that question are probably:
- the research opportunities are better, - the pay is better, - law universities abroad are more prestigious, - they all did the Rhodes, so they were already in the foreign university stream by then, so to speak.
Well, it's debatable what did the rocking first. :) Since they haven't actually left yet with notice periods and all, we were just going by the firm's statement from back then: "We learnt about their departure from media enquiries that day. Since none of them had informed us informally or formally, we had to ascertain facts before reacting to your request for comment. While it is indeed unfortunate to lose them, capital markets will continue to be a strong area of focus for the Firm. We are in the process of making senior level hires, to bolster the practice area."
Haha, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! :) In this case, since our window was quite long overnight, I hope you can still wait a few minutes longer! ;)
Our article states that he died in an accident in the first paragraph. But sadly, separately from that, he was also quite ill for much of the last few years, though it didn't seem to slow him down much or diminish his enthusiasm or passion.
He was and will forever remain a truly inspiring human being.
Sorry, on a bit of a summer break at the moment so it's been a bit slow...
Have not been able to authoritatively confirm new VC yet from multiple sources, but the committee did meet candidates and it's possible has recommended something.
Thanks, have checked with lawyers and doesn't appear KCo was involved in the acquisition, though possibly on the Invit part. Will update if find out...
I think our comments had crossed at the same time, so I refer you to my earlier response above. Re: "Entirely to his efforts" - no, that's probably an overstatement. I think the equation of current stature is probably more likely 33% Patel and faculty, 33% the state government's funding and support, and 33% students.
And there are many other similar ones in our archives.
So pray tell, exactly what should IE or TOI or LI or other media have done about true and factual stories such as the above? Bury them because overall he's mostly done a good job? Sweep such stories under the carpet, because it's not nice to be critical? Soft pedal on them because it might upset Patel or his supporters? Not report them because Patel doesn't comment on negative stories? Only copy-paste fluffy GNLU press releases about how hunky dory things are? Include some subjective non-journalistic boilerplate into every negative story about how Patel has also done some good things?
At the end of the day, negative news is going to be part and parcel of any VC job (or other jobs with a position of power, such as BCI chairman, politics, etc) and it's one of the media's highest duties to report on negative things that the powers would rather were not reported. Nearly everything else is just PR, and, in my view, somewhat optional.
So, if a VC doesn't know how to handle bad news, such negative coverage should be on the VC and the facts themselves, and not the media...
In part, I would probably agree: compared to many other NLU VCs, overall he's performed quite well and helped build a solid institution at GNLU, as opposed to running it into the ground (although, either way, it should be noted that success or failure is also in large part a function of the support and funding a state government provides rather than purely a VC's admin skills).
That said, there have definitely been legitimate issues and gripes around the way he had run the institution in a very autocratic and non-transparent manner, as evidenced by episodes such as the one reported by the IE and TOI above, for instance, as well as statements made by high court judges in several orders and policies surrounding disciplining students, etc. And at the end of the day, in our limited experience, Patel was never very sensible in dealing with or responding to bad news, criticism or disagreement that are part and parcel of NLU admin, which could explain some of the bad PR surrounding his tenure in the mainstream media as well as LI.
In any case, all the above are legitimate stories that media should be covering at public institutions such as NLUs. By contrast, ignoring those stories and instead showering praise on a law school administration and writing puff pieces, would not evidence "professional ethics, integrity and independence" in media, but quite the opposite.
Then again, no VC is perfect and yes, running a law school is a tough job and, yes, it could have been much worse...
Agree for the most part - which is why we have never previously covered block deals. However, we may start covering more and categorising these as a sub-section of capital markets activity and league tables, if there is enough meaningful activity. However, they won't be part of the M&A league tables.
Well, since you asked (sorta)... Journalism is in large part simply about following good procedure and I think our record regarding the accuracy of stories based on unnamed sources over the years should speak for itself. In the overwhelming majority of cases, as required by most credible media outlets, we require at least two independent authoritative sources confirming the same facts before running with a story based solely on off-the-record sourcing. After all, with respect to facts, it's better to be safe than sorry.
In this case, cutting a long story short, one authoritative source had confirmed Dr Nagaraj's appointment as interim VC to us off-record, but a second authoritative source directly and unequivocally contradicted this off-the-record. We therefore didn't run with the angle of his appointment. Also, the first source later confirmed that they had been been mistaken in their initial version of events.
It seems that Nagaraj is probably the front-runner for becoming interim VC if that position is not filled by month-end (and in light of his administrative experience as registrar and former NLUO VC this makes sense). However, we understand that no formal decision has been made yet on that front.
Regarding the scrapping of the shortlist, we had also heard this from a source but this had again been contradicted by a second source (though it remains an option after the 23rd meeting).
We had also heard the V Nagaraj rumour, but haven't been able to confirm this sufficiently for publication. I believe Nagaraj's name may have mentioned in the EC, but I don't think a formal decision on interim VC has been made yet.
Early rumours floating around had also indicated that the entire list had been scrapped, but we understood that this was not what would be recorded in the minutes and is currently mere speculation, hence we did not publish it.
I think what we can do is aggressively moderate political comments which are at the vitriolic end to the spectrum. Sensible discussions around the effect of politics on NLUs, for instance, would be ok, but crying "Hitler Didi" or smearing politicians with strong language will be strongly discouraged. Fair enough?
True - I would assume even getting non-equity partnership at most big international firms is a lot more competitive than the equivalent in a domestic firm...
Thanks for sharing. I think a potential issue is that making too many demands at once (such as rolling in foreign law firms, etc), is more likely to lead to political paralysis.
I would assume that's probably also the reason that the NLS SBA didn't raise the entire movement right now in its petition: it'd be hard enough to get the administration behind lobbying for just NLS ILU status. To make it something contingent on every NLU getting the status (or the wider movement, which still seems in its infancy), is likely to complicate and delay the issues even more...
Considering we had reported on this case several times in the past, your reasoning seems unlikely :) But thanks for sharing, wasn't aware. Will enquire.
Arguably law is a more fundamental part of the fabric of society than engineering, and ensuring diversity in the top law schools should therefore be a more important concern for a healthy constitutional democracy (providing they don't all join corporate law firms, that is)? Not sure, some may disagree.
To be honest, I've been wondering, seeing the recent poster in the LI comments calling for a new march in Delhi for #NationaliseNLUs coming up -- is there actually a concerted effort on that front by the NLU Consortium or mostly just individual students? Is the July protest actually being organised? Is anyone doing any lobbying, etc?
If people in the core of this movement would like to reach out, please do contact us via the tips link on the top left of the page.
I don't think that students from economically weaker backgrounds can afford lakhs of laptops, smartphones and foreign trips...? The more tuition fees increase, the more difficult it will become to widen access to NLUs and such work and costs will be outsourced to institutions such as IDIA...
We are actually lucky enough at LI to not really have the cliched "readership count" pressures, as you describe it, though it always amuses me slightly how laypersons (or self-described "wannabe journos" such as yourself) assume the online publishing business works.
This, like every other story we do, is a story we do because we either think is important or interesting (and sometimes both). There is no question: this story is both.
Regarding comments - well, there are all sorts of newsrooms and publications in this day and age, you should look beyond Aaron Sorkin's somewhat blinkered views of the world :). In short, I sometimes get involved in comments to answer reader queries, provide more background to stories or clarify facts if discussions are veering entirely off track. I also sometimes have personal opinions on something (as does every human being). Your mileage may vary.
Finally, according to my sources, I understand that she did not sign an NDA.
Regarding "Write a letter and expect the firm to beg her to stay" -- my comment was completely hypothetical. We don't know the full reasons for why she wrote that letter, but there are numerous reasons I had outlined that make more sense than her wanting the job back that she had resigned from herself.
But I was also saying that even if she wanted her job back, is there much wrong with explaining your grievances in calm and rational letter to top management? If I was a boss in a big organisation like Khaitan and someone was unhappy about something like this, I'd be thankful for them to let me know.
What happened after that, regarding the leak, is a separate issue and I might not be as happy about it if I was boss. But I'd think you can definitely claim "inadequacy of proceedings" and still leak the letter yourself, unless you've signed an NDA and if you're ready to face defamation if anything is untrue. Freedom of expression would presumably trump some vague sense of 'propriety' or morality you perceive here.
I fear you may disagree, but taking this further, playing devil's advocate slightly: propriety or morality might even defend someone leaking such a letter or 'whistleblowing'. After all, for many the fight for sexual equality and POSH, is more important than any individual or organisation or current societal mores, even. Providing some of the issues are as endemic as some of the comments in this thread claim (and I have good reasons to believe that in substance this is the case), this may ultimately be a blessing in disguise for an organisation in focusing its attention on the issue. Arguably, it's even a public service to the wider profession, where even SC judges understanding of #MeToo-related procedures was rather lacking).
For the sake of PR and marketing, lots of government departments probably spend similar amounts on newspaper and billboard ads, parties and conference sponsorships, charity fun-runs, etc.
The IPS might very well see this as a worthwhile investment to attract more women (and adventuring types) into the service, and each mountain she climbs certainly gets regular media coverage so you could argue it's been pretty decent value for money...
Inappropriate, in a modern-day professional context? Yes, most probably. The 'trouble' with Jethmalani was that to many bystanders (myself included) he appeared to have the charm and age to sort of pull it off and make his flirtations appear harmless, humourous or 'colourful' banter, rather than actually serious propositions or harassment (at least the ones I've directly witnessed). In other words, it was hard to take what he said entirely seriously, and quite easy, with a shrug, to just chalk it up to being the product of another era and just as a facet of his larger-than-life personality.
That said, even though I'm not aware of anything Jethmalani has done ever having progressed beyond talk, I'm sure that in many cases even that banter wasn't welcome or perceived as charming at all by its recipient (I don't know if he ever pressed on with flirtations when he realised it was unwelcome or not received well?).
The question should be, was this kind of stuff Jethmalani's 'fault', or is everyone else (including me) equally to blame for (presumably) never calling him out on it during his lifetime (even if it might not have made a difference)?
However, it's not entirely clear. Under IOE, "Professional Regulatory Council" is defined to include BCI, MCI, etc, but it doesn't appear to be mentioned again in the IOE notification, other than saying any changes to courses must meet "minimum prevailing standards": http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6385468-Gazette-Institutions-of-Eminence-Deemed-to-Be.html
It therefore seems likely that BCI LLB legal education rules etc would still apply.
Quote:
In this case, there was the rather newsy angle that these three all got appointed to Oxford professorships, so it made sense to speak to them in more detail.
1. Generally, yes, we'll probably always cover NLS a little bit more than newer colleges because there's only one NLS: it's the oldest, ranked as one of the best by most rankings, has the most alumni working in law firms and what happens at NLS (or not) matters for the greater ecosystem.
2. Right now, NLS has the most interesting narrative: A changeover in VC, potentially first NLU grad VC at own NLU, and an interim administration that seems to have derailed the appointments and internal processes. Who doesn't want to know what will happen next in that saga?
3. Sometimes other NLUs have more interesting things going on. I.e. Just in the last year or two, there have been similarly interesting and developing stories at NUJS or Rgnul that we've covered extensively, because they illustrate and are relevant to the wider education ecosystem.
We can't cover everything, but there's usually a reason that we cover the colleges we do.
- the research opportunities are better,
- the pay is better,
- law universities abroad are more prestigious,
- they all did the Rhodes, so they were already in the foreign university stream by then, so to speak.
He was and will forever remain a truly inspiring human being.
Have not been able to authoritatively confirm new VC yet from multiple sources, but the committee did meet candidates and it's possible has recommended something.
Regarding 'takedowns', I disagree. Patel clearly has had a tendency to ruffle feathers during his tenure - why else did the GMU registrar send the above letter? Why did a high court judge say in a judgment that Patel had turned GNLU "into an oligarchy where all decisions are taken, reviewed and implemented by a select few, and students are casually denied basic human rights and natural justice"? https://www.legallyindia.com/lawschools/bimal-patel-has-turned-gnlu-gandhingar-into-a-human-rights-violating-oligarchy-agrees-hc-overturning-malafide-unreasonable-illegal-frisking-decision-20160505-7556
And there are many other similar ones in our archives.
So pray tell, exactly what should IE or TOI or LI or other media have done about true and factual stories such as the above? Bury them because overall he's mostly done a good job? Sweep such stories under the carpet, because it's not nice to be critical? Soft pedal on them because it might upset Patel or his supporters? Not report them because Patel doesn't comment on negative stories? Only copy-paste fluffy GNLU press releases about how hunky dory things are? Include some subjective non-journalistic boilerplate into every negative story about how Patel has also done some good things?
At the end of the day, negative news is going to be part and parcel of any VC job (or other jobs with a position of power, such as BCI chairman, politics, etc) and it's one of the media's highest duties to report on negative things that the powers would rather were not reported. Nearly everything else is just PR, and, in my view, somewhat optional.
So, if a VC doesn't know how to handle bad news, such negative coverage should be on the VC and the facts themselves, and not the media...
That said, there have definitely been legitimate issues and gripes around the way he had run the institution in a very autocratic and non-transparent manner, as evidenced by episodes such as the one reported by the IE and TOI above, for instance, as well as statements made by high court judges in several orders and policies surrounding disciplining students, etc. And at the end of the day, in our limited experience, Patel was never very sensible in dealing with or responding to bad news, criticism or disagreement that are part and parcel of NLU admin, which could explain some of the bad PR surrounding his tenure in the mainstream media as well as LI.
In any case, all the above are legitimate stories that media should be covering at public institutions such as NLUs. By contrast, ignoring those stories and instead showering praise on a law school administration and writing puff pieces, would not evidence "professional ethics, integrity and independence" in media, but quite the opposite.
Then again, no VC is perfect and yes, running a law school is a tough job and, yes, it could have been much worse...
In this case, cutting a long story short, one authoritative source had confirmed Dr Nagaraj's appointment as interim VC to us off-record, but a second authoritative source directly and unequivocally contradicted this off-the-record. We therefore didn't run with the angle of his appointment. Also, the first source later confirmed that they had been been mistaken in their initial version of events.
It seems that Nagaraj is probably the front-runner for becoming interim VC if that position is not filled by month-end (and in light of his administrative experience as registrar and former NLUO VC this makes sense). However, we understand that no formal decision has been made yet on that front.
Regarding the scrapping of the shortlist, we had also heard this from a source but this had again been contradicted by a second source (though it remains an option after the 23rd meeting).
Hope that clarifies...
Early rumours floating around had also indicated that the entire list had been scrapped, but we understood that this was not what would be recorded in the minutes and is currently mere speculation, hence we did not publish it.
Who's in favour of blocking all hyperbolic politics related comments on LI in future?
I would assume that's probably also the reason that the NLS SBA didn't raise the entire movement right now in its petition: it'd be hard enough to get the administration behind lobbying for just NLS ILU status. To make it something contingent on every NLU getting the status (or the wider movement, which still seems in its infancy), is likely to complicate and delay the issues even more...
If people in the core of this movement would like to reach out, please do contact us via the tips link on the top left of the page.
Many thanks
Kian
This, like every other story we do, is a story we do because we either think is important or interesting (and sometimes both). There is no question: this story is both.
Regarding comments - well, there are all sorts of newsrooms and publications in this day and age, you should look beyond Aaron Sorkin's somewhat blinkered views of the world :). In short, I sometimes get involved in comments to answer reader queries, provide more background to stories or clarify facts if discussions are veering entirely off track. I also sometimes have personal opinions on something (as does every human being). Your mileage may vary.
Finally, according to my sources, I understand that she did not sign an NDA.
Regarding "Write a letter and expect the firm to beg her to stay" -- my comment was completely hypothetical. We don't know the full reasons for why she wrote that letter, but there are numerous reasons I had outlined that make more sense than her wanting the job back that she had resigned from herself.
But I was also saying that even if she wanted her job back, is there much wrong with explaining your grievances in calm and rational letter to top management? If I was a boss in a big organisation like Khaitan and someone was unhappy about something like this, I'd be thankful for them to let me know.
What happened after that, regarding the leak, is a separate issue and I might not be as happy about it if I was boss. But I'd think you can definitely claim "inadequacy of proceedings" and still leak the letter yourself, unless you've signed an NDA and if you're ready to face defamation if anything is untrue. Freedom of expression would presumably trump some vague sense of 'propriety' or morality you perceive here.
I fear you may disagree, but taking this further, playing devil's advocate slightly: propriety or morality might even defend someone leaking such a letter or 'whistleblowing'. After all, for many the fight for sexual equality and POSH, is more important than any individual or organisation or current societal mores, even. Providing some of the issues are as endemic as some of the comments in this thread claim (and I have good reasons to believe that in substance this is the case), this may ultimately be a blessing in disguise for an organisation in focusing its attention on the issue. Arguably, it's even a public service to the wider profession, where even SC judges understanding of #MeToo-related procedures was rather lacking).