Jindal Global Law School—India’s most expensive, self-proclaimed “world-class” private law university has quietly hired Vikramaditya Sahai (a.k.a. Vqueeram) as Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, despite a well-documented record of making sweeping, inflammatory, and openly derisive comments about Hindus, Indians, men, and the very idea of national belonging.

Sahai’s appointment in February 2025 has triggered outrage not because of their gender identity, as supporters disingenuously argue, but because the said words, conduct, and ideology that raise serious questions about the standards of institutions that shape India’s next generation of lawyers, judges, and policymakers.

It seems Vikramaditya Sahai was hired at JGLS in February, 2025.

It is shocking such people are rehabilitated without any apology. Not only that, they are also given the opportunity to influence young minds! pic.twitter.com/63aOHC9A83

— Sensei Kraken Zero (@YearOfTheKraken) December 9, 2025

This is not about who Sahai is. This is about what Sahai has said, what Sahai has done, and why premier academic institutions keep rewarding it.

A Pattern Of Derision: Sahai’s Public Statements

Sahai’s public record is not murky, it is crystal clear, documented on videos, posts, and interviews stretching back years. In a 2017 public event, Sahai said, “There is nothing nice about being Hindu. There is nothing nice about being Indian. There is nothing nice about being a man. As long as you are Hindu, you exercise power over Dalits, Muslims, Christians. As long as you are Indian, you occupy territories. Your existence is implicated in the murder of Junaid.”

Vikramaditya Sahai suggested in 2017 that there is nothing nice about being a Hindu or an Indian. She also said that India occupies territories.

Now, the Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) has hired this person as the Clinical Assistant Professor of Law and CJLS.

As per my… pic.twitter.com/ArlrnQCE1U

— Sensei Kraken Zero (@YearOfTheKraken) December 9, 2025

These are not stray remarks. They are ideological claims framed as universal truths, flattening all nuance and branding entire communities as inherently oppressive.

Yet today, the same individual is teaching at a law school and teaching it at one of India’s highest-fee, most aspirational institutions.

From Activism To Academia Without Accountability

Sahai’s CV is impressive, but heavily ideological:

• Faculty at Ambedkar University Delhi, Gender Studies
• Consultant at TISS Mumbai, Centre for Women’s Studies
• Senior Research Associate at CLPR Bengaluru, an organisation known for its activist-driven jurisprudence
• External member of the NCERT Gender Manual drafting team
• Law & Justice Scholar at Jindal Global University (2024–25)

Every academic posting is positioned in and shaped by an explicitly ideological ecosystem. But here’s the problem: ideological activism is not the issue; ideological extremism is.

Sahai did not just advocate gender inclusion. Sahai publicly argued that:

Opposed life imprisonment for trafficking, calling it harmful because it “criminalises trans identities.”

Referred to Rohith Vemula’s suicide note as “beautiful.”

There’s something seriously wrong. Here, “They” talks about Rohit Vemula’s “beautiful suicide note” pic.twitter.com/Y7ShTsUZ9R

— Sensei Kraken Zero (@YearOfTheKraken) November 3, 2021

These are extreme, absolutist formulations, not grounded in scholarship, but in activism turned into dogma.

And institutions absorbed this without question.

The NCERT Controversy: When Personal Conduct Meets Public Responsibility

When Sahai surfaced in the NCERT Gender Training Manual controversy, journalists and parents raised concerns on two fronts:

#1 Sahai’s ideological statements – open disdain for major religious communities, the nation-state, gender roles, and legal structures.

#2 Sahai’s public posting of semi-nude photographs on Instagram – on a profile that was completely open to the public, even while contributing to documents for school-level teacher training.

Instead of accountability, critics were attacked as “transphobic,” even though the criticism targeted content, conduct, and public suitability, not identity.

The NCERT eventually withdrew the manual. Sahai faced no consequences.

The Jindal Appointment: A Case Study in Institutional Capture

In early 2025, Sahai was brought into JGLS, a law school where tuition exceeds ₹8–10 lakh per year and which markets itself as India’s gateway to global legal careers.

So the question asks itself: How does a person who has said “there is nothing nice about being Hindu or Indian” get hired to teach Indian constitutional law, social justice, or gender law?

The answer is uncomfortable: India’s elite academic institutions have blurred the line between scholarship and activism so thoroughly that ideological extremism is not a red flag, it is a credential.

This is not an isolated case. It reflects a pattern across universities, where statements that deride an entire faith community, the dismissal of “Indianness” as inherently violent, open political activism, publicly posted semi-nude images, radical views on crime and justice, blanket characterisations of entire genders, associations with far-left activists such as Umar Khalid and repeated contempt for national identity.

…are not seen as disqualifications for teaching law or influencing educational policy. Instead, they become stepping stones.

Why Does This Matter?

Because educational institutions do not merely hire faculty; they legitimise them. They certify that these individuals are fit to shape young minds.

And here lies the core concern: If Sahai’s statements had targeted any other religious community in the same way, would elite universities still hire them? The answer writes itself.

If Sahai had described any other nationality as fundamentally oppressive, would they be appointed to teach law? Again: the answer writes itself.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Jindal Global Law School Has Hired A Trans ‘Scholar’ Who Says “There Is Nothing Nice About Being Hindu Or Indian” appeared first on The Commune.

In a ruling that reinforces the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals in India., the Madras High Court has held that while same-sex marriages may not yet be legally recognised, queer individuals are fully entitled to form families and live with partners of their choice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan made these observations while adjudicating a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman whose same-sex partner had been allegedly abducted and detained by her natal family.

Referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920), the High Court acknowledged that, “While Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India case may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family. The concept of ‘chosen family’ is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.”

The Court also echoed earlier sentiments expressed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court, who had advocated for the recognition of civil unions among same-sex couples.

Background: Abuse, Confinement, Police Inaction

The case was brought before the Court after the petitioner alleged that her partner had been forcibly taken and detained by her family. The local police, instead of intervening to assist the couple, reportedly pressured the detenue into going with her parents, who then subjected her to physical abuse and coercive “corrective” rituals aimed at changing her sexual orientation.

The detenue’s mother accused the petitioner of manipulating her daughter and alleged drug addiction. However, during a direct interaction in court, the Bench dismissed these claims.

“The detenue is aged about 25 years. She is well qualified. She appeared to be a perfectly normal looking young woman. It would be unfair to accuse her of any kind of addiction. To a specific question from us, the detenue replied that she is a lesbian and in relationship with the writ petitioner. She made it clear that she wants to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten.”

Yogyakarta Principles And A Mother’s Prejudice

In support of their ruling, the judges referred to the Yogyakarta Principles — an international legal framework adopted in 2006 on the application of human rights in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

They also drew a poignant comparison with Justice Leila Seth, the late Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh and mother of renowned author Vikram Seth, who had openly supported her son’s coming out as gay.

“The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We could understand her feelings and temperament. She wants her daughter to be like any other normal, heterosexual woman, get married and settle down in life. We endeavoured in vain to impress upon her that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own.”

The Court lamented that Justice Seth did not live to witness the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India judgment that decriminalised homosexuality in India.

Critique Of Terminology And Final Orders

In an aside, the Court expressed discomfort with the term “queer,” stating that conventional dictionary meanings such as “strange” or “odd” still carry pejorative undertones.

Upholding the detenue’s right to live freely with her partner, the Court delivered a strong rebuke to the authorities. “We censure the rank inaction on the part of the Police and the insensitivity shown by them. The Yogyakarta Principles affirm the right to security of the person concerned. When there is a right, there has to be a correlative duty. We hold that the Government officials, in particular the jurisdictional Police, have a duty to expeditiously and appropriately respond whenever complaints of this nature are received from the members of the LGBTQIA+ community.”

To ensure continued safety, the Court issued specific directives: “We also restrain the detenue’s natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty. We issue a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional Police to afford adequate protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required.”

Advocate M.A. Mumtaj Surya appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak represented the Respondents.

(With inputs from Verdictum)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Same Sex Couples Can Form A Family”: Says Madras High Court appeared first on The Commune.

In a controversial move that has sparked widespread debate, London’s Science Museum has labeled Lego bricks as “anti-LGBT” in a self-guided tour focused on queer history and identities. The museum’s “Seeing Things Queerly” tour, developed by its Gender and Sexuality Network, claims that the popular plastic construction toys reinforce heteronormative ideas due to their design, which features “male” and “female” connecting parts.  

According to an exclusive report by The Times, the museum’s guide describes Lego bricks as perpetuating the concept of heterosexuality as the societal norm. The tour states that the design of Lego bricks—where the protruding pins are referred to as “male” and the holes that receive them as “female”—is an example of “heteronormative language.” The guide further explains that this terminology reinforces the idea that “heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm, and everything that falls outside is unusual.”

The museum’s website elaborates on this claim, stating, “Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way. The top of the brick with sticking out pins is male, the bottom of the brick with holes to receive the pins is female, and the process of the two sides being put together is called mating.” It adds, “This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics unrelated to gender, sex, and reproduction. It illustrates how heteronormativity shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.”

Lego, a globally renowned toy brand, consists of interlocking plastic bricks that can be assembled in countless ways. The stud-and-tube design allows the pieces to connect seamlessly, making them a favorite among children, educators, and even engineers for prototyping. The terms “male” and “female” are commonly used in engineering and mechanics to describe components that fit together, such as pins and holes, without any reference to gender.  

Critics of the museum’s claim argue that the interpretation is an overreach. They point out that the use of “male” and “female” in technical contexts is purely descriptive and has no connection to gender or sexuality. In mechanical and electrical engineering, for example, a “male” component refers to a pin or protrusion, while a “female” component refers to a hole or receptacle designed to fit it.  

The museum’s stance has ignited a heated discussion online, with many questioning the rationale behind linking Lego bricks to LGBTQ+ issues. Supporters of the museum’s initiative, however, argue that it highlights how language and design can subtly reinforce societal norms, even in seemingly neutral contexts.  

As debates over gender, language, and cultural norms continue to evolve, the Science Museum’s interpretation of Lego bricks serves as a reminder of how everyday objects can become focal points in broader discussions about identity and inclusivity.  

For now, Lego has not issued a public response to the museum’s claims. The iconic toy brand remains a staple in households worldwide, celebrated for its creativity and versatility, regardless of how its design is interpreted.

(With inputs from OpIndia)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post London Science Museum Goes Woke, Says Lego Bricks Are Anti-LGBT As It Has Male And Female Parts Mating appeared first on The Commune.