Shut Up Counsel

I’ve wanted to say this for a long time, and I know I’ll probably get a lot of hate for it. Can we please stop reducing our festivals to liquor parties, DJ nights and dating events? Open @district_india or @bookmyshow around Navratri and you’ll find endless “Garba Parties”, “Dandiya Nights” and DJ events. You can party any day of the year. Nobody is stopping you. But why do we need to appropriate a religious festival to do it? Garba and Dandiya have a religious and cultural significance, particularly in devotion to Maa Amba in Gujarat. Yet, increasingly, some of these events have become little more than offline Tinder, Hinge or Grindr. The same thing happens with Diwali. We turn it into a drinking and party night while the religious significance of the festival gets pushed into the background. Ram, Krishna, Lakshmi and the traditions associated with the festival barely feature. And honestly, there is nothing inherently “secular” about these festivals. They emerge from religious traditions and are deeply connected to religious practice. Our Constitution protects the freedom to profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 25. If you want a secular celebration, create one. Pick a day like 15 August or 26 January and celebrate it every year. Have your DJ, drinks, parties and everything else. But let our festivals remain festivals. Let Garba be Garba. Let Diwali be Diwali. Let religious traditions retain their meaning, even if that means some people choose not to participate. Not everything needs to be secularised, commercialised or turned into a party. Sometimes, preserving the religious character of a festival is itself a form of respecting the tradition.

I read this book and would definitely recommend it, you folks.

Setting aside all the jibes made by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul against Justice DY Chandrachud in his memoir, it does display an accurate picture of Khaitan & Co. Except for the huge ass salary, Khaitan & Co has been the same in 1980s when SK Kaul joined. Taxing the juniors for every penny given to them...........

I can see a huge fight in silence here.

I had a very bad day today [30/10/26]

Looking at the attacks being made on Justice DY Chandrachud, I can say one thing History will be kind to him.

Is HMJ Bagchi undoing the previous SIR Order? Interesting.....

Wah bhai, dynasty is being established? the said BCI member is younger to me lol

GenZ ke Chakkar mei BJP and INC ke neta MUN chala rahe hai lol Sir, may I also volunteer to be on the EB? I have chaired MUNs in the past and I can also say a loud NO when a delegate disagrees with me, like Mr Brila.

It is saddening to see people target a law firm and an advocate merely for representing a party. An advocate is duty-bound to represent a client who seeks legal assistance and present their case in accordance with the law. It is for the Court to determine the merits of the arguments advanced. This is no different from criticising an advocate for representing a terrorist or an accused in a heinous crime. The right to legal representation cannot depend on whether we agree with the client’s views. Even those we strongly oppose are entitled to legal counsel. Let me be clear: I oppose the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act 2026 and stand firmly with the transgender community in their fight for dignity, equality and constitutional rights. I also strongly oppose the regressive, transphobic organisation in question and believe that its locus standi, motives and attempts to influence India’s domestic affairs must be challenged vigorously before the courts. But our opposition must be directed at the organisation, its arguments and its actions, not at an advocate for discharging their professional duty. We must fight this battle through constitutional principles and the judicial process, not by demanding that lawyers be punished for whom they represent. My solidarity with the trans community is unwavering. Sooner the act shall be held unconstitutional is my hope.

I'm proven right lol

I had a very bitter exchange with my senior associate and principal associate; the chaps totally forgot to mention a part/section in the application and filed it, and later started saying why I didn't flag it earlier. Boss, did you just blindly go ahead and wait till the arbitrator came back on that? In my defence, I joined the case in the middleway and I didn't have clear instructions.

I am confused. Earlier, I saw Right Wing chaps receiving hate; now, along with RW, even liberals are receiving hate. Please tell me what is wrong with liberals and what the alternative is.

My question to Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul is simple: why did he remain silent for so long, and why are these criticisms emerging just as his memoir is about to be published? If the allegations against former CJI DY Chandrachud are true, they deserve serious scrutiny. But the Collegium is not a one-man institution. The Third Judges Case established that the CJI’s primacy operates through the collective decision making of the Collegium. The CJI’s primacy cannot be undermined, but neither can the right of other senior judges to express disagreement. Justice DYC has stated that the Collegium’s recommendations were unanimous. Further, there is no official record of Justice Kaul stating his dissent. Justice Kaul is entitled to criticise Justice DYC . But institutional accountability cannot be selective. If he believed that the CJI was yielding to the government in judicial appointments, why did he not formally record his disagreement or speak out while he was part of the Collegium? The public deserves an explanation not only from the person being criticised, but also from the person who claims to have witnessed the alleged conduct and remained silent. If the criticism is justified, so is the question of Justice Kaul’s own responsibility. Otherwise, the retrospective criticism of Justice Chandrachud risks becoming an exercise in assigning blame without an equally honest reckoning with one’s own role in the institution.

Another experiment with life Need the blessings

Sometimes I wonder why law firms are so comfortable with dragging cases for years and billing endless hours. I get it, money matters, but shouldn't the ultimate goal be to get the client swift and permanent relief? I've seen matters where every time a new party enters, it's the same template, the same arguments and the same relief being sought all over again. Why not club these similar matters together, get everyone heard, and bring the dispute to a close? Litigation should be about finding solutions, not keeping the meter running. Just my two cents.

One may disagree with RSS but this is nothing but bodyshaming.