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?
Thoughts? Any comments or info from Delhi folk?
Those mourning and protesting this reform are doing so out of greed and short-sightedness. They fear that it will compel them to reduce their fees and travel more extensively for their matters. What these people fail to realize is the opportunity this creates to negotiate for stronger video conferencing infrastructure in the lower courts, and the fact that a more functional legal system will encourage even those outside elite economic brackets to use litigation as a means of resolving disputes and differences. That, in turn, means more work and greater turnover for the legal profession as a whole.
The advent of AI has, in any case, made it clear that court practice will, going forward, primarily support those who can operate on a high-volume, high-turnover model. High-margin, low-volume work, such as high-stakes EPC arbitrations, BIT disputes, investment arbitrations, and similar matters will remain concentrated among the top 1%. Even that space will almost certainly be disrupted by AI, if it has not been already, leading to lower costs over time.
This reform is therefore the need of the hour. We certainly need more reforms. The alternative was either this or the creation of a new appellate court between the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and this appears to be the more prudent choice.
Next reform: legislate PILs out of existence, and reserve the Supreme Court strictly for writ appeals and second appeals arising from original side matters. Believe me, if we reduce the burden on the Supreme Court by even 60%, the existing situation, where admission hearings resemble a game of Russian roulette, will come to an end. The need to engage senior advocates for admission hearings at fees of ₹15–20 lakhs plus plus will diminish because benches will finally have more time to engage meaningfully with the issues raised in each brief, both in chambers and in court.
All of this will help restore society’s faith in lawyers, judges, and the legal profession. Stupidities like the “Cockroach Janta Party” will remain where they belong, as memes, at best.