What if the scales of justice in India aren’t balanced by evidence and law… but by bloodlines and family ties? This thought is profoundly disturbing, and it isn’t some far-fetched question. It’s a reality that critics, and even former judges, have been warning about for years. A persistent whisper has now grown into a roar: the idea that India’s judiciary, the very institution designed to be our ultimate guardian of fairness, operates more like a private, exclusive club, plagued by judicial dynasties.
Consider this striking claim made during the NJAC case hearings in the Supreme Court: roughly half of all High Court judges and a third of Supreme Court judges were suggested to be related to people already in the “higher echelons of the judiciary.” In a nation of over a billion diverse people, are the seats on our highest benches really often occupied by a small, interconnected group of families?
This article aims to pull back the curtain on the inconvenient truths about nepotism in the Indian judiciary. We will expose the ‘family club’ that critics say is running India’s courts, from the local level to the highest seats of power, and ask the most important question of all: Is your fundamental right to a fair trial being compromised by who knows whom?
Understanding the Root Cause: The Collegium System
How did the Indian judiciary arrive at this point? To understand the landscape of judicial appointments in India, one must look at the unique system used to select judges for the High Courts and the Supreme Court: the Collegium System.
Notably, the word “collegium” is nowhere to be found in the Indian Constitution. It’s a system essentially created by the Supreme Court itself through a series of judgments in the 1980s and 1990s, famously known as the Three Judges Cases. Before this, the government held a significant say in judicial appointments, after consulting with the Chief Justice. However, through these cases, the Court reinterpreted the word “consultation” to mean “concurrence,” which effectively gave the judiciary the power to appoint its own members, aiming to ensure judicial independence.
So, how does the Collegium System work now? The Supreme Court Collegium is led by the Chief Justice of India and includes the four other most senior judges. They are the ones who recommend who should become a Supreme Court judge. For High Courts, that court’s own collegium makes a recommendation, which then has to be approved by the Supreme Court collegium before it goes to the government.
The stated goal was noble: to protect the judiciary from political meddling. But critics argue it has just created a whole new set of problems, leading to the Collegium System flaws. The entire process is completely opaque. There are no official criteria for selection, no public interviews, and no minutes of the meetings are ever released. The former Justice Ruma Pal famously called it one of the “best-kept secrets in the country.” This secrecy has led to widespread accusations of favoritism and, even worse, nepotism. It has created a system where who you know can be far more important than what you know, blocking talented first-generation lawyers while rolling out the red carpet for those with the right family name. This lack of transparency in the judiciary is a major concern.
Evidences of Judicial Dynasties
The numbers don’t lie. An investigation by ThePrint in early 2025 revealed that at least 30 percent of sitting Supreme Court judges are related to former judges, and another 30 percent come from powerful legal families. That means an incredible 60% of the judges in our nation’s highest court have deep family roots in the profession. Can this truly be a coincidence, or does it point to a systemic issue of judicial dynasties?
This pattern isn’t just at the top; it trickles down to the High Courts. The same investigation found that one in every three high court judges is related to another judge or comes from a family of lawyers. In some courts, the numbers are particularly jaw-dropping. At the Kerala High Court, that figure is a staggering 48 percent.
These aren’t just statistics; they represent a real web of relationships. Consider the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, whose tenure ended some months back. His uncle was the legendary Justice H.R. Khanna, famous for his lone dissenting voice during the Emergency. Or the previous CJI, D.Y. Chandrachud, who is the son of a former Chief Justice, Y.V. Chandrachud. What does this tell us about merit versus lineage in Indian judicial appointments?
The list goes on and on, creating what many now call “judicial dynasties.” This “uncle-judge syndrome,” as it’s often called, raises serious ethical questions about equal opportunity within the legal profession in India, even if the individual qualifications of the judges aren’t in doubt. But does their talent excuse the systemic issue?
The problem also bleeds into the wider legal ecosystem. Time and again, controversies erupt when new ‘Senior Advocates’ are designated, and the lists are filled with the children and relatives of sitting or retired judges. These connections, whether there’s actual wrongdoing or not, create a thick cloud of suspicion. When a lawyer arguing a case is the child of a judge, or when a judge hearing a case is related to another powerful person in the judiciary, can an ordinary citizen really believe the process is impartial? This erosion of public trust in the judiciary is the single most damaging consequence of this “family club.” It threatens the very idea of justice for all.
Counter Arguments and Nuances: Is Talent Enough?
To be fair, there is another side to this story. Defenders of the system argue that growing up in a legal family can instill a deep understanding of the law and judicial ethics from a very young age. They’ll also point out that legacy isn’t unique to law; you see it in medicine, business, and, of course, politics.
And the main defense of the Collegium itself is that it’s the only thing guaranteeing judicial independence from politicians. The fear is that giving politicians any say in appointments would lead to a court that serves the government of the day—a “web of indebtedness,” as it’s been called. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this, ruling that the judiciary’s power to appoint itself is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution and can’t be touched.
When asked about this, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pushed back against the idea of a dynasty problem. He pointed out that at the entry-level, in the district courts, things are getting more diverse, with women now making up over half of new recruits in some states. The argument is that the top courts today simply reflect what the legal profession looked like decades ago, and that change, while slow, is on its way.
The Bigger Picture: Impact on Justice Delivery
So, why should the average person care about nepotism in the judiciary? Because the impact is huge, and it hits the very core of your fundamental rights and our democracy.
First, it kills merit. When judicial appointments seem to be based on connections, it pushes aside countless brilliant and deserving lawyers who just don’t have the right last name. The system stops being about finding the best legal minds and starts being about keeping power within a select few families.
Second, it destroys public trust. Justice has to be seen to be done. The perception of a biased, closed-off system where personal relationships could influence decisions undermines the entire judicial process. That lack of trust is dangerous because it weakens the very institution meant to protect your rights and uphold the Constitution. This is a critical aspect of judicial reform in India.
Third, it raises urgent questions about representation in the judiciary. The data is clear: the higher judiciary is overwhelmingly dominated by upper castes. Between 2018 and 2023, data presented by the Law Ministry showed that roughly 76% of High Court appointees came from the general category, with much lower representation for OBC, SC, and ST communities. Gender diversity is just as bad, with women making up a tiny fraction of judges at the top. A judiciary that doesn’t look like the society it serves will always struggle to truly understand and serve its problems.
In the end, a fair and independent judiciary is the foundation of the rule of law. When that foundation is cracked by claims of nepotism and cronyism, the whole democratic building is at risk. It creates a system where justice looks less like a right for all and more like a privileged service for the well-connected.
Path to Reform: Solutions for the Current Situation
The call for judicial reform isn’t new. The biggest attempt came in 2014 with the National Judicial Appointments Commission, or NJAC. The idea was to create a six-member body to handle appointments, including the Chief Justice, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two “eminent persons.” It was a shot at creating a more transparent and balanced system for judicial appointments.
However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, calling it unconstitutional. The court’s majority felt that including the Law Minister and outsiders was a violation of judicial independence.
Yet, even as it killed the NJAC, the Supreme Court admitted the Collegium System wasn’t perfect and needed fixing. Years later, we’re still waiting for judicial transparency.
So what could real judicial reform in India look like? Experts have suggested:
- Real Transparency: Make the selection criteria public, record the minutes of collegium meetings, and explain why candidates are chosen or rejected.
- A New Commission: Revisit the idea of an independent body like the NJAC, but with stronger safeguards to make sure judges still have the primary voice.
- Wider Consultation: Actually ask for input from a wider group, like bar associations and top legal thinkers.
- An All-India Judicial Service: Create a central exam-based system to recruit judges for the lower courts, which would create a more diverse and merit-based pipeline to the top.
These ideas aren’t about weakening the judiciary; they’re about strengthening it. They’re about making sure the institution is accountable, transparent, and truly represents the people it serves.
Conclusion & Call to Action
India’s judiciary is at a tipping point. For decades, we’ve looked to it as a pillar of our democracy and the last hope for the common person. But the constant drip of nepotism allegations and the image of a ‘private family club’ are eroding its very foundation, threatening your faith in the system.
The challenge is to find a balance—a system that protects judges from political pressure but also holds them accountable to the people of India. Moving from a system of who-you-know to a system of what-you-know isn’t just a nice idea for reform; it’s absolutely essential for the future of justice in our country and for every citizen’s right to a fair hearing.
What do you think? Is the Collegium System broken? Can we bring back something like the NJAC, but do it better this time? Let us know your honest thoughts in the comments below – your voice matters!
If you found this investigation useful, please like and share it widely. It’s only through open and honest public discussion and collective demand that we can push for the change needed to protect the integrity of India’s courts and secure true justice for all.