CJI Gavai Highlights Systemic Legal Challenges and Calls for Reform-Oriented Legal Education
In his address, Justice Gavai also urged graduating law students to exercise financial prudence when considering foreign legal education. While acknowledging the value of international exposure, he cautioned against succumbing to peer pressure or incurring substantial educational debt. He cited instances where young lawyers had taken loans between ₹50–70 lakh to pursue degrees abroad—funds that, he suggested, could alternatively serve as capital to begin independent practice or build professional infrastructure. He encouraged students to seek global education through scholarships or at a later, more stable stage in their careers.
Justice Gavai further identified a growing trend of Indian law graduates pursuing education abroad as indicative of deeper systemic concerns, particularly the perceived inadequacy of India's postgraduate legal education and research infrastructure. Upon returning to India, he observed, many scholars face institutional resistance, lack of structured research pathways, limited funding, and non-transparent hiring practices. He advocated for the creation of merit-based, nurturing academic environments that offer dignity and support to legal researchers and educators.
Addressing the emotional and psychological pressures within the legal profession, Justice Gavai acknowledged the demanding nature of legal practice, characterized by long working hours and high expectations. He urged young professionals not to suppress their struggles and to seek support when needed, emphasizing the importance of mental well-being in sustaining a healthy legal ecosystem.
Later, delivering a lecture at Osmania University on the role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the framing of the Indian Constitution, the Chief Justice highlighted the constitutional balance between federalism and centralism. Referring to critiques that the Constitution was either too federal or too central, Justice Gavai reiterated Ambedkar's stance that the Indian Constitution was designed to maintain national unity in both peace and conflict. He commended the Constitution's resilience in the face of internal disturbances and external threats over the past 75 years and called upon citizens and legal professionals alike to uphold the vision of achieving economic, social, and political justice.
Justice Gavai also expressed personal gratitude for visiting Osmania University, which had conferred an honorary D.Litt upon Dr. Ambedkar in 1953. The events were also attended by Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, Supreme Court judge Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Acting Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, Justice Sujoy Paul.
News Source
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
19 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's where Democrats stand in polls at Trump's six-month mark
Recent polling is painting a mixed picture for Democrats as they look to chart a path forward in the wake of their loss to President Trump in November. Trump's approval rating remains comfortably underwater as he reaches the six-month mark back in office on Sunday. But while Democrats have scored some notable victories in high-profile elections since then, they've been unable to pull away from the GOP as the party hopes to regroup for the midterms next year. Data experts said Democrats' position has improved since Trump started his second term, but they still have a lot of work to do to win back trust from the American people and be poised to take back control of the House. 'You can't just be on the attack. You can't beat something with nothing,' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we're on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.' Months after Democrats suffered a major blow with Trump sweeping all seven battleground states and the GOP winning control of both houses of Congress, the party is still seeking to put the pieces back together. Halfway through the first year of Trump's term, many data points on where the party stands don't appear bright. Views of the Democratic Party have been at historic lows for a couple months. The percentage of registered voters who view the party favorably reached some of its lowest levels since at least the start of Trump's first term in office in YouGov's average, more than 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released Thursday found only 28 percent of Americans view the party favorably, a record low in the history of the outlet's polling dating back to 1992. Views of the Republican Party also aren't strong but haven't been quite as poor. A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country found recently that voters perceive the party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' An AP-NORC poll found just over a third of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, compared to 57 percent last July. Surveys have also shown widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a feeling that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against the Trump administration and for their voters. This has been particularly pointed against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose favorability rating has been stuck in the mid-to-upper 20s throughout Trump's second term, according to the Decision Desk HQ polling average, though his net favorability has improved somewhat more recently. Scott Tranter, the director of data science for DDHQ, said Democrats are still trying to form a coherent message but don't have a clear 'rallying cry,' though some of them have received attention as they've been arrested during faceoffs with Trump administration officials or visited detention centers like 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida. 'It's pretty clear that Schumer is not the guy, just based on his approval rating,' Tranter said. 'And one can make the argument that [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was underwater as well, but… Schumer doesn't seem to have that kind of gravitas that she did.' One other common trend in polling over these months is a lack of agreement over who the leader of the Democratic Party is after 2024. A CNN poll found in March that 30 percent of Democrats didn't give a name to respond to a question about which leader best reflects the party's core values. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) had the most support but with only 10 percent, while former Vice President Harris had 9 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 8 percent. An Emerson College Poll found Democrats widely split among the field of potential 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only with 16 percent. Tranter said this dynamic is somewhat to be expected following a party's loss in the presidential election, pointing to the first months of 2005 for Democrats after John Kerry's loss and of 2013 for Republicans after Mitt Romney's loss. 'Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,' he said. 'And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we're still pretty early on it.' But the data does show some reasons to be optimistic for Democrats. Trump's approval rating and favorability have consistently been underwater, not abnormal for him even as he won the November election, but still presenting Democrats with an opportunity. Democrats have mostly kept a lead in DDHQ's average of the generic congressional ballot since early March, albeit a small one of a couple points at most. They led on that question by 1 point as of Monday. The same CNN poll showing disapproval of the Democratic Party found Democrats are more motivated to vote in next year's midterms. A poll from Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward found Republicans trailing the generic ballot in 28 battleground House districts. Democrats also expressed hope that the passage of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' extending Trump's tax cuts and increasing border security funding but also cutting Medicaid spending, could give them the opportunity they've been looking for. Multiple polls have shown at least a plurality of registered voters or adults oppose it, though many also say they don't know enough. 'Trump and the Republicans are certainly focused on incredibly unpopular policies that are likely to benefit the Democrats that they deserve leading into the midterms,' said Ryan O'Donnell, the interim executive director of the progressive polling firm Data for Progress. 'But Democrats also have to show that they're hearing people's concerns and actively offering solutions to those concerns to make their lives better and more affordable.' Lake said the lack of a clear leader has a positive side, as the 2028 Democratic field will likely feature many showing what the Democratic alternative is to Trump. But she said the process of a leader or a few leaders emerging has been slower than in the past, and she expects that is unlikely to be 'fixed' before the 2026 midterms. That will require having a unified message if no unified leader, she said. 'They need to have a unified voice and a unified plan, and that plan has to include a proactive, populist economic message about what we're going to do and who we're going to fight for,' Lake said. Lake's polling firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win partnered to conduct a poll released Thursday evaluating those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but didn't vote in 2024. The poll, conducted from late April to early June, found many of those voters didn't like either candidate and didn't feel that Harris had a strong enough economic message to convince them she would lower costs. Pollsters also found most of those voters lean toward voting for a Democrat if the midterms were held today. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, said the feelings of regret that respondents indicated they felt about not voting, particularly as relates to the Medicaid cuts and the cost of living not dropping, give the party an opening. She said the poll, showing the most anguish about cuts to programs that help children and Medicaid, was taken before the law's passage, but those concerns are coming to fruition now. 'I think you can use that, right? You could leverage that to say, 'The thing you care about the most is the thing that is actually happening. And so you need to come and be a part of [the] opposition to this,'' Fernandez Ancona said. And the firm's poll, along with other polling, has shown Democrats want their party to go on offense. 'The table has been set,' she said. 'So the question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It's all about, can we seize the opportunity?'
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOJ rocked by wave of Trump firings
The Justice Department has been rocked by a wave of recent firings, a sign the administration is not done culling the ranks of career officials as it seeks to shape the department under a second Trump term. Maurene Comey, a New York-based federal prosecutor and the daughter of the former FBI director, was fired Wednesday without explanation. And news broke this week that the Justice Department also fired immigration court Judge Jennifer Peyton, who served as head of the Chicago immigration court system, shortly after the jurist gave a tour to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Those firings come on the heels of the dismissal of at least 20 staffers who worked under special counsel Jack Smith, a group that includes not only attorneys but also support staff and even U.S. Marshals. Attorney General Pam Bondi last week also fired the top career ethics official at the department, Joseph Tirrell, the latest in a string of ethics officials pushed out under President Trump. 'Every time I think we're at some point when the firings are over, there's another wave. So I would predict we'll see more,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's more dedicated career professionals being given walking papers when they really deserve to be elevated and empowered. And to fire the ethics attorney, I think, speaks volumes about where she's taking the department,' Blumenthal said. Justice Connection, a network of the department's alumni dedicated to protecting 'colleagues who are under attack,' estimate that more than 200 employees have been terminated at DOJ, a figure that includes firings at the FBI and other agencies, as well as prosecutors that worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. 'The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It's shameful, and it's devastating the workforce,' Stacey Young, executive director and founder of the group, said in a statement to The Hill 'DOJ leadership is making clear the ability to keep your job is not tied to your performance, your expertise, or your commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who remain at the department are now worried about how to uphold their professional ethical standards when it seems that their willingness to do whatever they are ordered matters more than any other aspect of their work.' The Justice Department declined to comment on personnel matters. Many of the attorneys that were fired have received brief letters saying they were terminated under the authority of the second article of the constitution, the one that establishes the presidency. A letter from Comey to her colleagues referenced the guiding ethos of the Justice Department: to pursue cases 'without fear or favor.' 'Our focus was really on acting 'without favor.' That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,' Comey said in the memo, adding, 'but we have entered a new phase where 'without fear' may be the challenge.' In the case of Peyton, Durbin said he sees a direct line between the tour she gave him – something he called a routine oversight visit – and her termination. 'Judge Peyton took time to show me the court and explain its functions. Soon after, she received an email from Department of Justice political appointees. The email claimed that immigration judges should not directly communicate with members of Congress and congressional staff and required all communications from congressional offices to be forwarded to headquarters for review and response,' Durbin said in a Tuesday email. 'Judge Peyton was fired soon after. Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job.' On Smith's team, the recent firings make for at least 37 staffers who have been dismissed, according to Reuters. And on the ethics front, beyond Terrill, Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the conduct of attorneys in the department, was fired in March. Brad Weinsheimer, another top ethics official, resigned after he was reassigned to a new working group focused on cracking down on sanctuary cities. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he sees two primary patterns. 'This is Pam Bondi attempting to go after all the president's perceived political enemies, to go after dedicated prosecutors who brought cases successfully to conviction. It's also part of the broader effort to completely rewrite history about Jan. 6,' he told The Hill, adding that he expects more firing of those 'deemed insufficiently pro-MAGA.' He then listed a string of officials inside and outside of DOJ that have been fired under Trump, including the heads of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. 'They seem to be doing everything they can to eviscerate any kind of watchdog or ethical oversight – clearly part of a pattern of trying to eliminate all accountability,' said Schiff, who sent a letter to Bondi this week asking for more details on Terrill's firings and plans to comply with ethics guidelines at the department. Beyond the firings, many Justice Department lawyers have left the department of their own accord, with several sharing with The Hill they feared being asked to do something illegal or would be forced to defend unlawful actions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the result is a culture of fear at the Justice Department. 'The Department of Justice is now a joke. When you look at the history of a once storied and legendary department, Pam Bondi has defined her job as doing whatever Donald Trump wants. She's completely sycophantic and subservient. And there may be some lawyers still left in the building who are trying to do their jobs in an honest way consistent with professional ethics, but everything has been supported, subordinated to the political will of Donald Trump,' he told The Hill. 'It's a tough thing for the real lawyers who are still there, and they express a lot of fear and anxiety about where the DOJ is going.' He added that some Republican colleagues, largely former prosecutors, have privately expressed concern over the firings. 'I have had Republican colleagues who were former federal prosecutors telling me privately that they are absolutely appalled that United States assistant attorneys are being fired because they worked on the January 6 case,' Raskin said. 'Think about the implications of that. People are being fired for doing their jobs well, and their job was bringing cases against people who violently assaulted federal police officers,' he said. But that concern was not publicly shared by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the panel. 'I have confidence in President Trump, confidence in his team at the Justice Department, if that's what they think is in the best interest of fulfilling their mission, that's their call,' he told The Hill. 'I don't know this particulars about each individual, but if that's what the attorney general believes is in the best interest of the Justice Department's mission, that's fine.' Comey and Terrill both addressed morale in letters to their colleagues. Comey said unjustified firings mean 'fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain.' 'Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else,' she wrote. Terrill, too, hinted at a call to action from colleagues. 'I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,'' he wrote in a post on LinkedIn that included his brief termination notice. 'I also believe that Edmund Burke is right and that 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.'
