CJI Surya Kant Defends Collegium Confidentiality, Backs Legal Education Reform at CNLU
CJI Surya Kant defended keeping collegium dissent confidential and backed a four-year law degree plus court apprenticeship at a CNLU student interaction.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has defended the practice of keeping dissenting views within the Supreme Court Collegium out of the public domain, arguing that disclosure could leave judges and candidates under consideration in a publicly compromised position.
The Chief Justice was speaking at an open-house interaction with law students at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) in Patna on Friday evening. The session was organised at the initiative of CNLU students to give them a direct forum to put questions to the head of the judiciary.
Asked why dissent recorded in the Collegium is minuted but never made public, Justice Kant said transparency must function within defined institutional limits, especially where the dignity and professional reputation of individuals being considered are at stake. Making such views public, he said, could place both candidates and judges in an untenable position.
Protest rights and access to the profession
Students also raised the issue of police action during campus protests. Responding to a question from a student named Vertika, the Chief Justice reaffirmed the judiciary's commitment to protecting the fundamental freedom of peaceful protest, stating that constitutional courts would not remain passive when lawful student expression is suppressed.
On access to the legal profession, Justice Kant acknowledged the financial and professional hurdles faced by first-generation advocates. Citing the Sarika Tyagi case, he advocated a dedicated professional assistance corpus, arguing that early financial support for new lawyers should be treated as a structural necessity rather than as charity or patronage.
Students flagged rising tuition fees and inadequate scholarship support across national law universities. The Chief Justice assured them that the problem of financial exclusion would be addressed proactively.
Reform of legal education
A significant portion of the interaction dealt with reforming legal education. CNLU Vice-Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) Faizan Mustafa proposed replacing the existing five-year integrated law programme with four years of academic study followed by a mandatory full-time year of court apprenticeship. The change would effectively do away with the separate one-year bar practice requirement currently mandated for judicial service examinations in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India.
Justice Kant responded favourably, calling the proposal "a new, welcome idea", and said it would integrate classroom learning with practical litigation experience rather than shorten legal education.
Patna High Court Chief Justice and CNLU Chancellor Justice V. Kameswar Rao backed broader changes in practical legal training. He called for judicial clerkships at the High Courts and the Supreme Court to become more competitive, prestigious and financially rewarding, and stressed the need for better stipends and research infrastructure to draw young legal talent towards judicial work and to make judicial service competitive with opportunities at elite corporate law firms.
Prof. Mustafa also spoke about the practical impact of constitutional education. Referring to Article 21, he said students taught about constitutional liberties would later invoke those same rights while making arguments before university administrations, a development he described as a source of professional satisfaction.