Not at all. My argument isn’t a personal indictment of Mr. Karia’s qualifications or a blanket condemnation of the collegium’s decision. It’s not about presuming that these qualities are lacking in this particular individual. Rather, it’s about emphasizing the broader principles and standards that we, as a society, must uphold when appointing judges to the bench.

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.

If it is 7 crores net (after tax), that is about 11 crores gross (before tax), which to be fair is pretty good by the standards of most senior counsel in a high court (save the most in demand).

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.

It is indeed interesting, isn’t it? The numbers are staggering—35 crores, 60 crores—figures that most people can scarcely imagine earning in a lifetime, let alone in five years. It naturally raises the question: what drives individuals who have already amassed such wealth to keep pushing forward?

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.

Ah, “Hot Shot,” you’ve zeroed in on the impressive earnings of top law firm partners—7 crores a year, indeed, is no small feat. But let’s not be dazzled by the zeros and lose sight of the real issue here.

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.

Great news and I endorse it on principle. We must push our brightest and best to the bench. However, I wish they brought him into counsel practice with a senior gown (kept him there for 6 months - 1 year) and then inducted him into the DHC as a judge. This new trend of plucking law firm partners and placing them straight on the bench seems wrong, and its repercussions will not be pleasant.

Nothing to be confused about, allow me to clarify. The resolution passed by the Collegium clearly states "average net professional income of Rs. 709.69 lakhs for the last five years....". Please specifically note the usage of the word "average" here. Therefore, the last 5 years have essentially been the sample size, and after deducting all expenses, he has on average made Rs. 7.09 crores per year. This is a fact, and cannot be disputed.

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.

Totally confused. Someone says 7cr is total net for last 5 years (so average net of 1.48 per year) and someone else says it is average net for last 5 years (so total net of 35 cr). Bit of a spread in those two positions! I suppose the truth, as always, is somewhere in between?

Wow! I always thought he was an NLS / NLU grad. Does he come from an ordinary background or from privilege? I ask because it's well known that AMS never gave the same weight/ preference to non-NLU grads. Of course, litigation could've been an exception. Barriers to entry perhaps may have been higher in more technical practice areas..