Excluding judicial candidates solely for their family background is not a sign of meritocracy but a form of prejudice, legal experts argue.
New Delhi : October 3, 2025
Should a judge’s child or relative be denied judicial elevation merely because of family background? This question lies at the heart of an ongoing debate in India’s legal circles. For decades, the judiciary has been criticized for fostering nepotism in judiciary, with allegations that “judicial families in India” dominate appointments. Yet, many legal scholars argue that dismissing merit based on heredity is not a mark of meritocracy but a form of prejudice that risks undermining the very principles of fairness.
The controversy reflects the tension between meritocracy vs nepotism, between continuity and innovation, and between protecting the judiciary’s integrity while ensuring inclusivity.
Nepotism in Judiciary: The Criticism
The Indian judiciary has faced frequent charges of nepotism, with the term “uncle judge syndrome” used to describe instances where relatives of judges are elevated due to family ties. Critics argue this trend creates an elitist environment, narrowing access for first-generation lawyers and undermining public confidence.
In recent years, scrutiny of the collegium system of judicial appointments has intensified. The lack of transparency in how judges are selected has fueled the perception that family connections often play a decisive role.
Public debates frequently question whether judicial dynasties represent a continuation of privilege rather than a celebration of talent.
Judicial Families in India: A Historical Perspective
Despite criticism, history shows that judicial families in India have produced some of the finest judges, whose judgments have shaped the Constitution and advanced fundamental rights.
- Justice H.R. Khanna, remembered for his courageous dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976), belonged to a judicial family. His principled stand during the Emergency remains a beacon of judicial independence.
- Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who served as Chief Justice of India from 1978 to 1985, and his son Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the current Chief Justice, reflect a tradition of continuity that has combined conservatism with progressive reform, particularly in areas like privacy, gender equality, and LGBTQ rights.
- Justice E.S. Venkataramiah and his daughter Justice B.V. Nagarathna, poised to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027, highlight how lineage can coexist with merit and modern reform.
These examples demonstrate that heredity alone does not determine judicial success — integrity, courage, and scholarship remain indispensable.
Meritocracy vs Nepotism: A False Binary?
Those who crusade against hereditary appointments often argue that meritocracy must prevail over lineage. However, legal experts point out that the bar is a brutal meritocracy in itself.
Unlike politics, where dynastic succession often translates directly into power, the judiciary requires decades of hard work. Every aspiring judge must first prove themselves as a lawyer — arguing cases, writing opinions, and enduring years of scrutiny.
To exclude an individual solely because they belong to a judicial family amounts to reverse discrimination in law. Meritocracy should mean selecting the most capable candidate, regardless of background, not penalizing someone for their surname.
Collegium System of Judicial Appointments
At the heart of this debate lies the collegium system of judicial appointments, under which senior judges recommend names for elevation. While the system was designed to preserve judicial independence from political interference, it has often been criticized for opacity and favoritism.
The uncle judge syndrome has emerged as a byproduct of this lack of transparency. Allegations suggest that judges sometimes promote relatives or colleagues’ kin, leading to perceptions of nepotism.
Yet, defenders argue that reforming the collegium to ensure transparency and accountability is a better solution than rejecting candidates from judicial families outright.
Indian Judiciary Reforms and the Path Forward
Calls for Indian judiciary reforms have grown louder in recent years. Suggestions include:
- Transparent criteria for judicial selection, with merit, integrity, and diversity as key factors.
- Independent commissions to vet candidates alongside the collegium.
- Greater representation of first-generation lawyers, women, and marginalized communities.
- Clear disclosure mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest in appointments.
Such reforms could address perceptions of nepotism without resorting to discriminatory exclusions.
Continuity and Courage in Judiciary
While nepotism is a valid concern, it is equally true that continuity and courage in judiciary often come from judges with strong legal family backgrounds. Exposure to constitutional debates, ethical dilemmas, and the legal profession from an early age can inspire a deep respect for justice.
The judiciary’s history is full of examples where judges from legal families showed remarkable courage — standing against authoritarianism, upholding fundamental rights, and innovating in constitutional interpretation. To dismiss their contribution as nepotism overlooks their role in preserving judicial independence.
Reverse Discrimination in Law
Excluding candidates solely because of their family background raises the problem of reverse discrimination in law. It suggests that while the judiciary seeks to protect fairness, it is willing to penalize individuals for circumstances beyond their control.
True meritocracy should neither privilege nor punish lineage. Instead, it should focus on the actual performance, judgment, and scholarship of candidates. A surname should not be a ticket to the bench, but neither should it be a disqualification.
Judicial Dynasties and Merit
The phrase judicial dynasties and merit encapsulates the paradox of this debate. While dynasties may appear elitist, they have also produced some of India’s most respected judges. The key lies not in blanket exclusion but in ensuring that every appointment is justified by demonstrable ability.
Source:
