
CJI Gavai Flags Urgent Need For Reforms In Indian Legal System, Says Badly Need Fixing
"Delays in trials can sometimes go for decades. We have seen cases where someone has been found innocent after spending years in jail as an undertrial. Our best talent can help us resolve the problems that we are facing," he said.
"Even though I conclude that our legal system is badly in need of fixing, I remain cautiously optimistic that my fellow citizens will rise to the challenges,' the CJI said.
He said that the country needs to invest not only in institutions but also in imagination, in mentorship programmes, research fellowships, policy labs, local innovation ecosystems, and ethical workplaces that make the best minds want to stay or return after studies abroad.
He advised students to go abroad for studies on scholarships, not to put pressure on family finances.
He also told students that a foreign degree alone is not a stamp of their worth. "Don't take this decision in a reflex of thought or under your peer pressure. What happens next? Years are in debt, anxiety, and career decisions made under a financial burden. Do not mistake urgency for progress… There is no age bar to learn,' the CJI said.
He mentioned that many who study abroad come back with renewed passion and fresh perspectives, but when they return, they often find our institutions unwelcoming, under-resourced or closed to new ideas. 'This must change if you want to keep our best minds or bring them back; we must build nurturing academic environments, offer transparent and merit-based opportunities, and, most importantly, restore dignity and purpose to Legal Research and Training in India,' the CJI stated.
He advised the passing out graduates to seek mentors not for their power, but for integrity. CJI Gavai told the graduates to become mentors themselves one day.
'That is how we build not just careers, but a community of care within the profession, one that uplifts, not one that intimidates," he said.
He emphasised the need to learn from the experience of others. 'Let me say this with honesty. I am here today, not just because I worked hard. Yes, efforts mattered, but so did the fact that someone opened a door for me, someone who saw something in me before I could see it in myself. That act of belief, of support, of sharing wisdom changed my life,' he said.
The CJI said the legal profession is noble, important, but never easy and that there is no straight path or guaranteed returns. "The profession demands that you constantly prove yourself, to the court, to your clients, to your peers, and often to yourself," he said.
"Two things could keep young students on a forward path in this struggle. The first is being grounded in the basics of law and being consistent in learning. There is no shortcut to knowing the law. There is no alternative to knowing the basics as well,' he said.
Justice Gavai also warned the graduating lawyers that the profession can be isolating and emotionally taxing.
"The hours are long, the expectations high, the culture sometimes ruthless. You will feel pressure not just to succeed, but also to appear to be successful. Many hide their struggles. I urge you not to. Find your community."
Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and Supreme Court Judge Justice PS Narasimha also participated in the convocation. Acting Chief Justice of Telangana High Court Justice Sujoy Paul presided over the event.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
Op Sindoor debate in Parl today, PM Modi says precision strikes a message for terrorists
PM Modi set the tone of the government as the Parliament prepares for a fiery debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. The Prime Minister warned that there will be no safe havens for terrorists read more As the Indian parliament gears up to debate the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Sunday that the precision strikes of Pakistani terror camps in May were India's message that there are no safe havens for terrorists and their masters. While speaking at an event in Tamil Nadu's Gangaikonda Cholapuram, the prime minister said that India places the highest priority on its national security. He emphasised that Operation Sindoor has created a new awakening and a new self-confidence across the country. PM Modi was attending the event to honour Chola emperor Rajendra Chola when he made his stance on the matter clear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The world witnessed India's firm and decisive response to the threat against its sovereignty during Operation Sindoor, and it has sent a clear message: there is no haven for terrorists and enemies of the nation,' the prime minister said in his address. PM Modi sets the tone of the government ahead of the debate Many believe that with this address, the prime minister has set the tone for the government's response to the debate in parliament, which will take place in the Lok Sabha on Monday. Meanwhile, the Opposition is planning to open the front by talking about the big terror attacks under 'PM Modi's watch'. The debate in Lok Sabha is coming after a first week of disruption of Parliament's Monsoon session and is expected to be a fiery one. The two sides have agreed to a marathon 16-hour debate in each House, which invariably stretches longer in practice. Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is likely to initiate the debate immediately after the question hour in the Lok Sabha. Sources close to the matter told The Times of India that Home Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar will be speaking on the issues amid indications that the PM may intervene to convey his government's 'robust' stand against terrorism. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition in LS and RS - Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge - would lead the charge against the government along with Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav. It is believed that Congress is planning to attack the government and particularly PM Modi over national security. The Opposition is most likely to point toward the repeated big terror attacks under PM Modi's watch. Since the Pahalgam terror attack, Congress and the opposition have been pointing out that the terrorists singled out the tourists by religion to execute them. Ahead of the debate, Congress also raised the issue of US President Donald Trump's claims of halting Operation Sindoor and calling for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. On Sunday, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh pointed out that since May 10, Trump has claimed '26 times' that he stopped the operation by 'threatening to cut off trade with India, and claimed that five fighter jets may have been shot down'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Even though Congress had been demanding a special two-day session of Parliament immediately after Operation Sindoor was abruptly halted, that demand was ignored. Nevertheless, better late than never,' he wrote in a post on X.

The Wire
23 minutes ago
- The Wire
Operation Sindoor: Narendra Modi's Image Versus National Interest
Prime minister Narendra Modi should know that seeking the cooperation of opposition parties to project India's case abroad after Operation Sindoor must necessarily be accompanied by showing some respect for the opposition in domestic politics. You cannot seek opposition cooperation to present a unified foreign policy position abroad and continue to treat opposition parties as "enemies" in domestic politics. After all, it was the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat who had advised the Bharatiya Janata Party not to treat the opposition as enemies and also constructive engagement after the BJP's disappointing performance at the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. In this regard has Modi learnt any lessons from the 2024 Lok Sabha results? The basic attitude and approach doesn't seem to have changed. Modi still believes that he can cynically manipulate the opposition through coercive politics without showing any sincerity of purpose. It is common knowledge now that Operation Sindoor, though a limited success, was badly bungled at several levels and mistakes were made which could have been avoided. This is something the government is yet to admit buy responsible Indian military officers have dropped adequate hints in public fora. When an honest military officer cited " restraint from political leadership" as a reason for some Indian fighter planes going down, he was serving the interest of truth. The Modi government's initial silence on the other hand was meant to protect the prime minister's image. Modi was clearly on the backfoot after operation Sindoor and was unable to fully convince his own constituency (including the RSS) that it was an unqualified success. He therefore swallowed his ego for the first time and approached the opposition parties to take part in a joint delegation to present India's case abroad as no country had explicitly condemned Pakistan's role in the Pahalgam terror attack. The Congress party led by Rahul Gandhi has been been raising tough questions around Operation Sindoor and sought a special session of parliament to discuss everything threadbare. Other opposition parties wanted the same. But then the cynical, coercive and manipulative template of politics is embedded in the regime's DNA. The opening of the parliament session was marked by the unprecedented resignation of vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar. This was the distraction the BJP needed to create chaos and disrupt what might have been a relatively more orderly parliament session with the citizens eager to learn more about the critical issues of national interest such as Operation Sindoor and the stupendous claims by US president Donald Trump on India-Pakistan ceasefire linked to trade talks. The reality is that the president of the world's biggest military power has repeated 25 times that he stopped the India-Pakistan military exchange which was about to spillover to the nuclear domain with the threat of trade. Whether Modi likes it or not, this issue will have to be discussed in parliament. The people of this country cannot be kept in the dark simply because Modi's personal image is to be kept intact. This, in fact, is the nub of the issue. Operation Sindoor and the multiple issues it has thrown up demands an open discussion in parliament to further national interests. But the regime's ecosystem is bent upon creating distractions and confusion to protect Modi's image. So national interest and the ruling ecosystem's attempt to save Modi's image are totally at odds with each other today. This was apparent even during Operation Sindoor. The BJP's media ecosystem projected Modi as a warrior who will not spare Pakistan but the moment the ceasefire happened, Modi's picture was withdrawn and replaced with that of government spokesperson Vikram Misri who announced the ceasefire. This was undisguised manipulation. Similarly, people noticed how Modi used the opposition's cooperation to burnish his own image with his domestic constituency. Even before the opposition delegation had returned, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar was boasting at a public forum that Modi had achieved with the opposition parties what even Indira Gandhi couldn't have done in the 1970s. Thus everything is a personal image building exercise for Modi first, and then something else. One only hopes that Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tiwari have internalised this aspect of Modi's narcissism when they lend unqualified support to Operation Sindoor in "national interest." Don't they see how "national interest" seamlessly converts to Modi's interest in domestic politics? Don't they see how the hyphenation of India with Pakistan, which they speak against in global fora, is paradoxically a key component of Modi's image building politics in the cow belt? They might see more of it in the current parliament session as the ruling party cynically manages everything as it has done in the past. Indeed how Modi treats the opposition parties in domestic politics, as aptly articulated by Mohan Bhagwat himself, is fundamentally the bane of Indian politics and the primary cause of democratic backsliding today. If this is not fixed nothing is fixed.


Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
Constitutionally anchored mechanism needed to balance judicial independence and accountability
Hyderabad: SeniorAdvocate at the Supreme Court of India and Distinguished Professor of Law at NALSAR, Raju Ramachandran, emphasized the need for a comprehensive, constitutionally anchored mechanism that strikes a balance between the independence of the judiciary and genuine institutional accountability. He underscored the importance of transparency, procedural fairness, and consistency in safeguarding both public confidence and constitutional integrity. Delivering a lecture as part of the ongoing Distinguished Lecture Series at the NALSAR University of Law on Saturday, delved deep into the theme 'Removal of Judges: From Justice V. Ramaswami to Justice Yashwant Verma' in his lecture. The session commenced with Prof. Anup Surendranath introducing the speaker. Dr. Malvika Prasad provided an overview of the Lecture Series. The event was graced by Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Prof. N. Vasanthi, Registrar, Prof. Sitharamam Kakarala, and students, faculty, and members of the legal fraternity. In his address, Ramachandran drew from historical instances, key legal developments, and his own experience as a member of the Inquiry Committee in the Justice V. Ramaswami case, the first and only full-fledged judicial impeachment proceeding in India. Ramachandran began by outlining the evolution of judicial tenure protections, starting with colonial frameworks and progressing to the post-independence constitutional safeguards designed to uphold judicial independence. He noted the anomaly presented in the 1964 case of Justice Jaffer Imam, who, suffering from mental incapacity, had to be persuaded by Prime Minister Nehru to resign in the absence of a removal procedure for incapacity short of impeachment. The lecture focused extensively on the Justice V. Ramaswami case. He recounted the procedural integrity of the inquiry and the political failure of the impeachment motion, which was defeated in Parliament due to abstentions by the ruling party despite the committee's adverse findings. Ramachandran criticized the limitations of the current constitutional and statutory framework, emphasizing the excessive dependence on the in-house mechanism, a non-statutory process developed by the judiciary to address allegations of misconduct. He noted that this mechanism lacks transparency, operates outside public scrutiny, and creates constitutional uncertainty when its findings influence or precede impeachment motions in Parliament. Discussing recent developments, Ramachandran drew attention to the case of Justice Yashwant Varma, where an internal committee recommended impeachment. He raised critical questions about the implications of such findings being challenged in court and how such parallel processes of judicial inquiry and parliamentary impeachment might undermine each other, potentially resulting in what he termed a 'reverse-Ramaswami scenario.'