Uncle Judges and Legal Dynasties: Is the Indian Judiciary a Family Affair?

By Poonam Sharma

India’s judiciary, so long held out as the last redoubt of justice and constitutional ideals, is now under the microscope—not just for its judgments but for the résumés behind them. A probe into India’s 25 High Courts of March 2025 finds that among 687 sitting permanent judges, at least 102 have a direct relationship with sitting or retired judges. Another 117 judges belong to legal families in which their parents or immediate relatives were lawyers. Together, this constitutes over 32 percent of all High Court judges being part of what popularly comes to be known as the “kith and kin” club of the Indian judiciary. These figures are breathtaking, though perhaps underestimates, as several such relations could go undisclosed or remain in an informal avatar. This fact does bring to the forefront certain basic issues related to meritocracy, perception in the public mind, and structural integrity of one of India’s strongest institutions.

Though some of its advocates defend this phenomenon by claiming that each profession has its traditions—doctors, politicians, bureaucrats, and actors—it is the judiciary’s role to distinguish it. The hope is that those who join the bench are the best qualified and best-behaved people, not just the well-connected ones. It is here that the issue arises. The legal community’s vertical continuity from generations to generations in families is not necessarily ill. What discredits the judiciary is when such pedigree eclipses ability. There are so many instances of judges’ offspring having taken up positions on the bench without unremarkable professional careers. The then Chief Justice of the Madras and Meghalaya High Courts, Justice Sanjib Banerjee, has even candidly shared instances of going against such appointments while serving on the High Court Collegium. He mentioned that he disqualified some names because of lack of merit or temperament, but those names were cleared for appointment shortly after his exit. This implies that even where attempts are made to resist nepotistic appointments, the wider system may continue to enable them behind the scenes.

Examples are common where several generations of the same family occupy judicial posts. Justice Vishal Mishra of Madhya Pradesh High Court is the brother of ex-Supreme Court judge Arun Mishra and son of ex-High Court judge Hargovind Mishra. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt’s family members in Gujarat are a group of lawyers that include her husband, sons, in-laws, and brothers. In the Kerala High Court, 48 percent of judges hail from legal backgrounds. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it is 39 percent. In Allahabad, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand, the same trend is followed but in different percentages. The judiciary, by and large, is fast turning into a dynastic order than a merit-based institution.

The practice of “uncle judges,” as widely referred to in the 230th Law Commission report, further reflects the scale of such entanglements. The report brought to light issues where judges’ kin continue practicing in the same court and can compromise on conflicts of interest, biased decisions, and moral gray areas. Although the report suggested judges should not be posted at courts where their relatives practice, such things have been dragging on. Even now, most courts still follow such practices. This erodes public trust and contributes to the belief that the judicial process is not as transparent or impartial as it should be.

Another important concern is the secrecy of the Collegium system. The system, whereby judges appoint judges, is conducted behind closed doors, with no criteria or transparency. Critics such as senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi have cautioned that such a system encourages back-scratching between judges and deters truly meritorious candidates. He even embraced the notion of discouraging judicial appointment recommendations of relatives of current or retired judges, while recognizing that affecting such reforms has been challenging. The absence of responsibility in such processes enables the continuation of judicial dynasties, stifling opportunities for first-generation lawyers or marginalized groups.

Reform, however, needs to be conducted cautiously. Justice Banerjee cautions against the deconstruction of the Collegium without a better substitute, lest it might result in executive overreach and increased politicization of the judiciary. Instead, he suggests the institution of a judicial management system that might free judges from administrative tasks and enable them to concentrate on judicial duties. He also suggests the formation of a judicial audit committee that would keep tabs on judges’ assets and financial activities. Secondly, he recommends that whenever the Collegium proposes a panel of judges, the government reply to the whole panel and not selectively choose or reject names, to make both sides accountable and transparent.

What is certain is that the Indian judiciary has to rethink its appointment processes to continue enjoying the public’s trust. While the residence of judges’ kin or children in the judiciary is not in itself unethical, the query is whether they were promoted on merit, or whether influence paved the way. The current tendencies indicate the second is the general rule, thus undermining the concept of justice being blind to origin. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani contends that while ancestry need not be demonized, transparency needs to be heightened. As she puts it, judges are not above the law, and their selection should reflect the highest ideals of equity and fairness.

In a democratic republic, institutions like the judiciary must be seen as accessible, fair, and representative of the broader population. If the halls of justice continue to be filled with an elite, hereditary few, then not only is justice delayed or denied to many—but the legitimacy of the judiciary also comes into question. The way forward requires openness, reform, and most importantly, a commitment to choosing the best legal minds regardless of their surname or birth. Anything less threatens to make our courts into closed circles, where power is retained by families and justice is a matter of inheritance, not principle.