avid thought poster/law graduate
Mumbai
Joined June 2020
- Tweets3.1K
- Following1.1K
- Followers1.1K
- Likes30K
a (she/her) retweeted
These are deeply prejudicial comments coming from the bench. It appears that the government lawyer does not even have to open his mouth, the judge is doing all the arguing.
Court: these kind of undertaking you have to apologise. In absence of apologise, we cannot accept. This is instigation. Your recognition is because of working in India. You have young followers. See the magnamity of the country, you have all recognition despite being oci holder.
You can say I had no idea of consequences.
Dhond: I came on their radar because I was turning back
Court: There are no issues at all. You have worked in India. Your bread butter is by virtue of working in India. No notice given to you. It came because you came in media. We cannot accept this.
Dhond: please do not go by..
Court: You are an oci holder. Not at par with indian citizens. You have participated or make some mistake, but you cannot have this liberty, it is not available to oci holder.
Dhond: When I was returning, I spoke to media.
Court: You will make statement and unconditional apology. that should suffice and we will ask state to consider. This statement is sufficient.
ASG: Undertaking and apology falls under foreignor.
Court: Except this incident there was no cause.
ASG: he has not
Court: What is your age?
Dhond: 46 yrs. Stayed in India for 42 yrs.
Court: He probably forgot he is oci holder.
ASG: He has participated, he has instigated people. He has spoken to media, he has made statements. The statement in petition is false, that he went out of curiosity, that is incorrect and false.
#BombayHighCourt
a (she/her) retweeted
Future Chief Justice Vikram Nath’s absurd, off-the-cuff remark, “don’t travel by air,” becomes less surprising if you looked at the record in a pending petition challenging arbitrary airline tariffs (S. Laxminarayanan vs. Union of India). Tough remarks in open court. Bench led by Justice Nath called festival fares “exploitation” and said it would “interfere.” But you don’t see anything in the judicial orders passed in the matter. In fact, every hearing has ended with more time for the government (one Diwali to another). In May, the petitioner pointed out that the old rules already empowered DGCA to act against “excessive or predatory” fares. The Court never decided the point and chose instead to wait for new rules. In August, it read the draft rules in a “sealed cover” and returned them without comment. Those rules, now notified, delete the “excessive or predatory” power, reduce DGCA to merely “monitoring” fares, and allow the Centre to intervene only in an “extraordinary situation” (vague, arbitrary). So, what happened here. Court was asked to enforce a power against excessive fares, and nearly a year later we have a rule that removes it. Btw, this adds to a growing body of examples where the Court decides in favor of the executive simply by not deciding, because delay helps the executive
a (she/her) retweeted
This would all be very funny if the regulatory State weren't so fucked that the solution to literally everything is to constitutionalise and litigate.
Plea regarding extremely high airfares mentioned before #SupremeCourt
Counsel: The airfares have increased to 700%. It is an essential service. Violation of Article 14.
J Vikram Nath: Don't travel by air. Next case.
a (she/her) retweeted
Scholarship in legal academia rests on the foundations of extreme verbosity deterring people from actually reading it, while encouraging them to respect the scholar for being able to repackage or reproduce variations of “he said that-she said that-they are almost right or wrong.”
a (she/her) retweeted
im four beers deep and i need everyone to understand that wikipedia is the last good thing. millions of strangers agreed to write down everything for free and then argue about citations forever. no ads. no paywall. this should not exist and it does and i'm crying about it
a (she/her) retweeted
What? The real estate market in India is in crisis and you are laughing? How will the real estate mafia make 10 crore on their 25th 1BHK flat at unimaginative concrete slab apartment near that gigantic gutter with no connectivity?
a (she/her) retweeted
Watch @neha_aisa in conversation with my colleague @ShoaibDaniyal
Full conversation here: youtube.com/watch?v=-2SJAepi…
a (she/her) retweeted
The claim or misconception about foreigners being found out through SIR has survived mainly because of media. Inadequate follow up on this betrays either laziness or complicity
congress ke time pe my friends and i would play silly games every day and laugh until our stomachs hurt
a (she/her) retweeted
Since folks seem to be struggling to understand basic concepts- sharing my favourite children’s book “why daddy’s law firm works with the nice oil men” seriouspeople.co/penguin/
a (she/her) retweeted
The sea is all we have in Mumbai. It's the only third space where families can congregate without tearing their wallets.
This government, its crony cabal of industrialists is so anti-poor! Had it not been for the nationalist project, we'd have heads rolling by now.
a (she/her) retweeted
Heartbreaking story of a Chinese immigrant engineer, who, after getting laid off from Amazon, reduced epilepsy medication on ChatGPT’s advice so she could perform better at job interviews and apply for a green card. She died because of all these.
nytimes.com/2026/10/27/well/…
a (she/her) retweeted
Big news for Tuberculosis treatment: Indian Patent office refuses to grant patent for BPal treatment, a short regimen using Bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid. This will make the regimen affordable for many drug resistant TB patients @scroll_in
a (she/her) retweeted
Disenfranchisement is real - Jean Dreze and Yogendra Yadav respond to Surjit Bhalla and set the facts straight on SIR.
a (she/her) retweeted
*State* imposes restrictions and shut-downs, but *protesters* are allegedly responsible for business losses — in most courts, if you tried to make such an absurd argument, you’d be laughed out of the room. However…
Supreme Court hears a plea concerning restrictions on traders and hawkers in Connaught Place, Delhi.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observes that "someone wants to sell moongfali, someone wants to exercise the right to protest, while others seek maintenance of law and order". All such matters are before the Court.
The Bench acknowledges the livelihood concerns of small traders during the festive season and says constitutional remedies, including public law compensation, are available in cases of unlawful State action.
@Cockroachisback @abhijeet_dipke
a (she/her) retweeted
We did the bare minimum in solidarity with lawyers attacked by Delhi Police. We observed a minute’s silence when we should have been rising in rage. Perhaps we were mourning the death of the bar’s spine and courage.
