What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
A recent proposal to impose a higher threshold for appointing judges’ children to high courts has sparked significant debate within India’s legal community. Suggested by a senior Supreme Court collegium member, the move addresses long-standing grievances from first-generation lawyers who often feel overshadowed by the progeny of sitting or former judges.
This proposal follows an earlier suggestion to temporarily halt the appointment of judges’ children to high courts. While the initial suggestion garnered support from many lawyers, the new proposal seeks a middle ground by requiring higher benchmarks for such candidates. The goal is to balance merit-based appointments with concerns about the advantages of judicial lineage.
India’s legal profession is highly competitive, and first-generation lawyers face significant challenges in establishing their careers. Many perceive that judges’ children enjoy an easier path to high court appointments, fueling resentment within the legal community. By proposing stricter criteria, the collegium member acknowledges these concerns while recognising the potential talent and experience judges’ children may bring to the judiciary.
Critics argue, however, that imposing additional criteria based on parentage is discriminatory. They contend that judicial appointments should be determined solely by merit and suitability, without regard to familial connections. There is also concern that such policies could exclude capable individuals who have benefited from their unique upbringing and exposure to the legal profession.
This debate reflects broader issues of nepotism and dynastic privilege in India. While family connections influence many professions, the judiciary’s unique role demands a rigorous focus on merit-based appointments. The proposal to impose higher thresholds for judges’ children aims to address these challenges by ensuring a level playing field. It seeks to evaluate all candidates based on qualifications, experience, and suitability while acknowledging the potential advantages of a deep understanding of the judiciary.
