Talent and not nepotism should be the rule in judges' selection

Excluding familial ties in appointments will enhance judicial diversity and merit-based recruitment

- OLAV ALBUQUERQUE

The announcement of the Supreme Court collegium that it will exclude wannabe judges who have kith and kin as judges in the constitutional courts will boost the entry of first-generation judges. This will diversify the judiciary from its image as a staid old boys' club where fathers and grandfathers handed down the baton to their offspring.

The example that springs to mind is the Chandrachud lineage, with the 16th CJI Y.V. Chandrachud's record of over seven years as the head of the judiciary being unbeaten to date.

A large group of lawyers led by advocate Mathews Nedumpara had a grievance that first-generation lawyers are ignored when being considered for high court judgeship, along with the kith and kin of sitting or former judges of the high courts or the Supreme Court.

This grievance found expression during a recent full court reference to pay homage to three former Supreme Court judges.

Due to this long-standing grievance, a Supreme Court judge who is a collegium member proposed that sitting or former judges' children who are lawyers must meet a higher benchmark for appointment as high court judges.

This seems to be a more reasonable approach rather than the suggestion of the collegium eschewing considering the kith and kin of judges' progeny from being elevated to the constitutional courts.

A collegium member opined it would be discriminatory to completely bar such candidates from being selected as judges during the selection procedure based strictly on merit and suitability.

Litigation is getting more and more complex, which makes it imperative for the constitutional courts to find suitable talent.

Many candidates who were overlooked were deserving cases.

Except for the 48th CJI N.V. Ramana, the last five CJIs came from distinguished lawyers' families or were related to judges of the constitutional courts.