The anecdote emerged during the hearing of a plea filed by judicial services aspirant Prerna Gupta, who had approached the Supreme Court seeking revaluation of an examination paper. Although a bench comprising the Chief Justice and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed her petition, the interaction took an emotional turn after the Chief Justice chose to share a defining episode from his own early legal career.
Addressing Gupta during the hearing, the Chief Justice said he hoped she would leave the courtroom with encouragement despite the dismissal of her plea. He then recalled how, during his final year as a law student, he had applied for judicial services at a time when final-year students were eligible to appear for the recruitment process.
He explained that by the time the examination results were announced, the selection procedure had undergone a significant change. Earlier, the recruitment process was conducted by the public service commission, but following a Supreme Court ruling, judges of the high court were appointed as subject experts whose opinions became binding on the commission.
During that period, Justice Surya Kant had begun practising at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The senior-most judge on the interview panel already knew him because he had argued two important matters before the judge shortly before the interview process.
One of those cases was Sunita Rani versus Baldev Raj, a matrimonial dispute in which the judge had allowed his appeal and overturned a divorce decree granted by a district judge on the ground of schizophrenia.
Recalling the encounter, the Chief Justice said the judge had summoned him to his chamber and directly asked whether he intended to become a judicial officer. After he replied in the affirmative, the judge immediately ordered him to leave the chamber.
The Chief Justice described the moment as devastating, saying he walked out trembling and believed his aspirations had been shattered. He said he felt as though he had been severely reprimanded and feared his legal career had ended before it had properly begun.
However, the next day brought a dramatic shift. The same judge called him back and offered advice that permanently altered the course of his professional life.
According to the Chief Justice, the judge told him that while he was free to join judicial services if he wished, he believed the Bar held far greater opportunities for him. The judge advised him not to become a judicial officer and instead dedicate himself to legal practice.
Justice Surya Kant revealed that after that conversation, he chose not to attend the interview for judicial services. He also did not immediately inform his parents of the decision because he feared disappointing them. Instead, he immersed himself in his career as an advocate.
Turning once again to the litigant lawyer, the Chief Justice asked whether she believed his decision had been right or wrong. He then encouraged Gupta not to remain consumed by the outcome of a single examination paper and advised her to continue pursuing opportunities in the higher judicial services.
He further told her that the legal profession offered immense possibilities beyond one unsuccessful attempt and urged her to look ahead toward the future.
Despite the rejection of her petition, Gupta left the courtroom smiling after the unusual and candid exchange with the Chief Justice.
The episode offered a rare glimpse into the personal struggles and career-defining decisions of one of India’s highest constitutional authorities, while also underscoring the Supreme Court’s message that professional setbacks do not necessarily determine an individual’s future in the legal profession.
About The Author
Comment List