We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Kudos to Karia for this. He's an ILS Pune alumnus.
On a personal note, might I add that Som was always very easy to work with.
In fact, since this Rs. 7.09 crores per year is based on an average across 5 years, in all likelihood he has actually made north of Rs. 7.09 crores these last couple of years at least.
The answer, I suspect, lies in something far more profound than money. For those at the pinnacle of their profession, the motivation often transcends mere financial gain. It becomes about mastery, about influence, about leaving a legacy. When you’ve reached the point where your financial needs are more than met, what propels you isn’t the next crore—it’s the desire to shape the landscape of your field, to set new standards, to be the best.
But there’s also a cautionary tale here. The pursuit of ever-greater financial success can become all-consuming, potentially blinding even the most brilliant minds to other, perhaps more enduring, forms of achievement. The ability to command vast sums in M&A or dispute resolution is impressive, but at what point does the relentless chase for more obscure the larger picture—one that includes public service, ethical leadership, and contributing to the common good?
This brings us to the heart of the matter: when does financial success become a gilded cage, trapping individuals in a cycle of perpetual ambition? And more importantly, what happens when that drive is channeled into roles that demand a different kind of motivation—roles like the judiciary, where the stakes aren’t measured in profits, but in justice?
So, while we can marvel at the financial achievements of these individuals, we should also ask ourselves: what do we truly value in our leaders, in our judges? Is it their ability to accumulate wealth, or their capacity to serve the greater good, to embody the principles of fairness and integrity that our society depends on?
Motivation, in the end, is a complex thing. But if the drive to accumulate more wealth is all that remains, then perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what true success looks like—both for these individuals and for the institutions they might one day serve.
Bunch of other DHC lawyers said yes, but their names have not been recommended.
Yes, only a select few partners reach that level of earnings, and it’s undoubtedly a marker of their success in the corporate world. But financial success in a law firm, while commendable, is not the same as the qualities required to sit on the bench. Earning 7 crores is a reflection of one’s ability to navigate complex business deals, manage client relationships, and drive firm profits. It speaks to expertise in a particular domain, certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to the judicial wisdom, impartiality, and breadth of experience that we expect from those who hold judicial office.
The judiciary isn’t a reward for corporate success. It’s a position of public trust, one that requires a different set of skills and experiences—skills that are often forged in the rough and tumble of courtroom advocacy, where the stakes are more than financial, and where the consequences of decisions reach far beyond the balance sheets of corporations.
So while we can acknowledge the financial success of those at the top of the law firm ladder, let’s not confuse that with the qualities that make a great judge. The bench demands more than just expertise in a niche field; it demands a deep, broad understanding of the law, a commitment to public service, and the wisdom to apply the law fairly and justly. And that, “Hot Shot,” is something that 7 crores a year alone cannot buy.
The point isn’t to single out one individual, but to engage in a necessary discussion about the qualities we value in our judiciary—qualities like deep courtroom experience, impartiality, and a clear distance from potential conflicts of interest. These are not trivial concerns, nor are they unique to any one candidate. They are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of our judicial system.
It’s also worth noting that the collegium’s decisions, like any human process, are not infallible. They deserve scrutiny—not out of disrespect, but out of a commitment to ensuring that our judicial appointments meet the highest possible standards. Questioning these decisions is part of a healthy, functioning democracy; it’s not an attack, but a necessary dialogue.
So, to answer your question directly: this isn’t about declaring that the collegium made a “horrendous mistake.” It’s about ensuring that, as we move forward, we’re vigilant in upholding the principles that ensure our judiciary remains fair, impartial, and respected. These discussions are not only about one individual’s qualifications but about the integrity of the entire system, which must be preserved and protected at all costs.
As for the poster who writes extremely well while decrying the focus on money, don’t dismiss money so easily, my friend. Earning this amount in a law firm shows the individual has many qualities that make for an excellent public servant - an incredible work ethic, attention to detail, commitment and stamina across many years (even decades), the ability to understand and address the conflicting interests of different stakeholders, raw intellect and a mastery of at least one area of law. Last but not least, financial resources that mitigate the ever present temptress of the under-paid yet powerful - corruption.
Several of these are innate qualities, difficult to acquire merely from books or experience. And they represent excellent building blocks for a distinguished judicial career.
Clearly, we would like every judge to be yet another Solomon from the very start. That is, perhaps, unrealistic. Solomons are made over the course of a life. Prior success in a career, evidenced by earnings, is a good first step. Best of luck to the new appointee for what(ever) lies ahead.