Who Is V. Mohana? The Senior Advocate Who May Join the Supreme Court Bench

EduLaw · Know Your Advocates · Part 1 WHO IS V. MOHANA? The Senior Advocate Who May Shape India’s Next Decade from the Supreme Court Bench Career • Judgments • Philosophy • Impact Published 27 May 2026 · ~6,500 words · 25 min read Section 1 The Oath That Has Not Yet Been Taken Imagine the Central Hall of the Supreme Court of India on a morning that has not yet arrived. The oak-panelled chamber hushes. A woman walks to the lectern, right hand raised, and reads the constitutional oath that will transform her from an officer of the court into a member of the court itself. She is V. Mohana—first-generation lawyer, daughter of a mother who believed that law could liberate, graduate of a college that had no women’s hostel when she enrolled, and, if the Collegium’s recommendation is accepted, only the second woman in the Supreme Court’s seventy-six-year history to be elevated directly from the Bar. On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, recommended five names for elevation: four sitting High Court Chief Justices—Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), Justice Shree Chandrashekhar (Bombay), Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (Madhya Pradesh), and Justice Arun Palli (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh)—and one Senior Advocate: V. Mohana. The recommendations were made across two sittings, on 22 May and 27 May. If the Government of India clears the file, the Court’s working strength will rise toward the newly sanctioned ceiling of thirty-eight judges, up from the previous thirty-four, filling vacancies left by the June retirements of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Pankaj Mithal. This article is not a biography. It is a story about a person, a philosophy, and a future impact—told through the lens of EduLaw, which believes that understanding who sits on the bench is as important as understanding the law they will interpret. Mohana’s elevation, if confirmed, will be the tenth instance of a practising advocate being appointed directly to the Supreme Court, and only the second time that advocate has been a woman. The first was Justice Indu Malhotra in 2018. That Malhotra was also Mohana’s mentor is not coincidence; it is the quiet architecture of Indian legal history revealing its patterns. “My mother told me: ‘Study law. It will give you a voice when the world tries to silence you.’ There were no lawyers in my family. There was no women’s hostel in my college. But there was my mother’s conviction, and that was enough.” — V. Mohana, in an interview with Legal Bites Section 2 From Coimbatore to Courtroom 1: A Personal Background V. Mohana was born into a family with no connection to the legal profession. Her mother, the decisive influence in her life, urged her toward law at a time when the profession was overwhelmingly male and metropolitan. In 1983, India introduced the five-year integrated B.A. LL.B. programme for the first time, and Mohana was part of its inaugural cohort at Government Law College, Coimbatore (then known as Coimbatore Law College). The infrastructure was sparse. There was no women’s hostel. Library hours were limited. But the faculty, many of them practising lawyers who visited the college between court sittings, brought the courtroom into the classroom, and that proximity to practice shaped Mohana’s understanding of law as something lived, not merely studied. She graduated in 1988 with a B.A. LL.B. and enrolled with the Bar Council. Her early years were spent in Coimbatore under the tutelage of M. Panchapakesan, a senior advocate who impressed upon her the importance of mastering procedural law before attempting to argue substance. This apprenticeship—grinding through case files, attending trial courts, drafting applications—gave her a foundation that many law graduates, trained in moot-court abstractions, never acquire. Mohana has spoken repeatedly about the gap between legal education and legal practice, arguing that Indian law schools produce graduates who can pass examinations but cannot draft a coherent application or cross-examine a witness. Her own education, imperfect as it was, at least had the advantage of proximity to working lawyers. The decision to move to Delhi was the second turning point. In the early 1990s, Mohana relocated to the capital and began working with Indu Malhotra, then a rising advocate at the Supreme Court who would later become the first woman elevated directly from the Bar to the bench. Malhotra’s chambers became Mohana’s graduate school. Through Malhotra, she gained exposure to constitutional, commercial, and arbitration law at the highest level, and she learned the unwritten craft of Supreme Court advocacy: how to read a bench, when to press an argument, and when to sit down. Over the years, Mohana also worked with or appeared alongside some of the most prominent advocates of the era: Kapil Sibal, K. K. Venugopal (later Attorney General), P. Chidambaram, Arun Jaitley, K. Parasaran, and T. R. Andhyarujina. Each association added a layer of skill—Sibal’s rhetorical fluency, Venugopal’s forensic precision, Chidambaram’s mastery of economic law, Jaitley’s political-legal synthesis. These were not formal mentorships in the Western sense; they were the Indian Bar’s apprenticeship system at work, where a junior learns by carrying briefs, sitting through arguments, and absorbing patterns of thought through sheer proximity. Section 3 The Rise: From the Bar to the Brink of the Bench The milestones of Mohana’s career read like a quiet accumulation of institutional trust. In 1996 she cleared the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) examination, one of the Indian legal system’s most demanding qualifications. The AOR designation is the gateway to filing cases directly in the Supreme Court; without it, an advocate must rely on another AOR to present petitions. Passing this exam placed Mohana among a select group of practitioners who could operate independently in the apex court’s procedural machinery. She served as a Panel Lawyer for the Government of India, representing the Union in a range of civil and criminal matters. This role gave her an inside understanding of how the state litigates—its institutional hesitations, its bureaucratic constraints, its occasional bursts of genuine public-interest zeal. She also appeared as amicus curiae in multiple cases, a role reserved for advocates whom the Court trusts to present an objective, disinterested perspective on complex issues. On 23 April 2015 the Supreme Court designated her a Senior Advocate. The designation is not applied for; it is conferred by the Court itself, recognizing an advocate’s standing, ability, and contribution to the law. Senior Advocates wear a distinctive gown in court, may not directly interact with litigants (they must be briefed by an AOR or another advocate), and are expected to maintain a higher standard of professional conduct. At the time of Mohana’s designation, no lawyer had been made a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court for over three years, making her appointment all the more significant. Beyond courtroom advocacy, Mohana served as an honorary editor of the Supreme Court Reports (SCR), the Court’s official law journal. This is a role of quiet but real influence: the SCR shapes how judgments are read, cited, and understood by the profession. She was also a member of the Supreme Court’s Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee, chaired by Justice Indu Malhotra—her former mentor once again intersecting with her institutional life. Additionally, she has served as an empanelled mediator of the Supreme Court, reflecting the Court’s growing emphasis on alternative dispute resolution. 1983 Enrolls in India’s first five-year integrated B.A. LL.B. at Government Law College, Coimbatore. 1988 Graduates; enrolls with the Bar Council; begins practice under M. Panchapakesan in Coimbatore. Early 1990s Moves to Delhi; joins the chambers of Indu Malhotra at the Supreme Court. 1996 Clears the Advocate-on-Record examination; gains the right to file cases independently in the Supreme Court. 23 April 2015 Designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court of India—the first such designation in over three years. 2015 Appears in the landmark NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) constitutional challenge. 2018–2025 Serves as Panel Lawyer for the Government of India; appointed amicus curiae in multiple cases; serves on the Supreme Court Gender Sensitization Committee and as honorary editor of the SCR. 27 May 2026 Supreme Court Collegium recommends her elevation to the Supreme Court bench—only the second woman ever elevated directly from the Bar. Section 4 Judicial Philosophy: What She Believes and How She Argues To speak of a “judicial philosophy” for someone who has not yet been a judge requires a shift in framing. An advocate’s philosophy is revealed not in the judgments she writes but in the arguments she makes, the causes she chooses, and the principles she repeatedly invokes. Across interviews, case records, and public statements, six threads of Mohana’s legal worldview become visible. The Generalist’s Conviction Mohana practises across at least eight distinct areas of law: civil, criminal, constitutional, service, banking and SARFAESI, intellectual property, cybercrime, and corporate law. This breadth is deliberate. She has argued that excessive specialisation produces lawyers who can parse a statute but cannot see its relationship to the constitutional fabric. In her view, every legal question is ultimately a constitutional question, because the Constitution is the source of all legislative authority. A lawyer who understands only tax law, she contends, will miss the Article 14 dimensions of a discriminatory tax regime; a lawyer who understands only criminal law will overlook the Article 21 implications of pre-trial detention. This generalist conviction, if carried to the bench, would produce a judge comfortable hearing any roster—a quality the Supreme Court, which assigns cases across diverse subject areas, particularly values. Constitutional Advocacy as First Principle Mohana appeared in the 2015 NJAC case, one of the most consequential constitutional battles of the decade. The case challenged the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to replace the Collegium system of judicial appointments with a National Judicial Appointments Commission that included political representatives. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining judicial independence. Mohana’s involvement in this case placed her at the intersection of constitutional theory and institutional politics—precisely where a Supreme Court judge must operate. Gender Justice as Structural Reform Her membership of the Supreme Court’s Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee, her reported involvement in the permanent-commission case for women officers in the Indian Army, and her own trajectory as a first-generation woman lawyer from a small-town college collectively point toward a consistent engagement with gender as a structural issue, not merely a rhetorical one. Bar and Bench, reporting on the Collegium’s recommendation, noted her work on women’s permanent commission in the armed forces—a line of cases that has reshaped the Indian military’s relationship with gender equality. If she joins the bench, she will be one of only two women on a thirty-eight-member Court, alongside Justice B. V. Nagarathna. Her presence will not by itself remedy the staggering underrepresentation of women in the higher judiciary, but it will ensure that the bench includes at least one voice shaped by the experience of navigating a profession that was not designed for her. Mediation and the Art of Non-Adversarial Resolution As an empanelled mediator of the Supreme Court, Mohana has practised what many judges only preach: the resolution of disputes without the machinery of adversarial litigation. India’s Mediation Act, 2023, has given statutory footing to court-referred and private mediation, and its implementation will require judges who understand mediation not as a lesser alternative to adjudication but as a distinct discipline with its own methods and ethics. A judge who has mediated disputes brings to the bench an understanding of party autonomy, the limits of judicial intervention, and the difference between a judgment that resolves a legal question and a settlement that resolves a human conflict. Legal Education as a Mission In interviews with Legal Bites, SuperLawyer, and The Interview Portal, Mohana has spoken at length about the failures of Indian legal education. She criticises the “exam-only mindset” that reduces law to memorisation, the neglect of moot courts and clinical programmes, and the failure to teach English communication skills that are essential for effective advocacy. She advises law students to begin internships early, to visit trial courts before appellate courts, and to seek mentors who will expose them to the unglamorous mechanics of practice—drafting, filing, negotiating. These are not casual opinions; they are the distillation of thirty-eight years of watching young lawyers arrive at the Supreme Court unprepared for its demands. A judge with this perspective would be well-positioned to contribute to the Court’s growing role in shaping legal education policy through the Bar Council of India and the National Law Universities. Institution-Building Through the Written Word Her role as honorary editor of the Supreme Court Reports deserves separate attention. The SCR is more than a compilation of judgments; it is the medium through which the Court speaks to the profession. Editing the SCR requires an understanding of what makes a judgment citable, how headnotes should frame the ratio, and which dissents deserve emphasis. This editorial sensibility, applied to the act of writing judgments, could produce opinions that are not only legally rigorous but also accessible—a quality the Supreme Court’s increasingly lengthy and jargon-laden opinions sometimes lack. “Do not study law only to pass examinations. Study law to understand power—who has it, who doesn’t, and what the Constitution says about the difference.” — V. Mohana, interview with Legal Bites Section 5 Landmark Cases and Documented Contributions Documenting the case record of a Senior Advocate is inherently more difficult than documenting the judgments of a judge. Judges author opinions that are published, indexed, and searchable. Advocates, especially Senior Advocates who are briefed rather than instructed, often leave no trace in the written record beyond a line in the cause-list or a mention in the order sheet. What follows is drawn from publicly available records, court filings, and credible legal-journalism sources. NJAC Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) The constitutional challenge to the 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. A five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the amendment as violative of the basic structure. Mohana appeared in the proceedings, placing her at the centre of the most significant judicial-independence litigation since the Second and Third Judges Cases. The case reaffirmed the Collegium system as the constitutional mechanism for appointing judges—the very system that has now recommended her own elevation. Indresh Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2022) A service-law dispute in which Mohana appeared as Senior Advocate before the Supreme Court. Service-law cases, though less dramatic than constitutional challenges, form a significant portion of the Supreme Court’s docket and involve questions of administrative fairness, procedural regularity, and the rights of government employees—issues that directly affect millions of public servants. Women’s Permanent Commission in the Indian Army Bar and Bench, in its reporting on the Collegium recommendation, cited Mohana’s involvement in the permanent-commission case for women Army officers. This line of litigation, culminating in the Supreme Court’s direction that women officers be granted permanent commissions on par with male officers, is one of the most consequential gender-equality decisions in Indian military law. Vasu Coco Resorts & SARFAESI Matters Mohana has appeared in matters involving the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, including the Vasu Coco Resorts litigation. SARFAESI cases involve the intersection of banking law, property rights, and procedural fairness—a domain that has grown in importance as India’s banking sector grapples with non-performing assets. Amicus Curiae Appointments Mohana has been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court in multiple civil and criminal matters. The amicus role is reserved for advocates the Court trusts to present a neutral, well-researched perspective. Her repeated appointments suggest that the bench regards her as both competent and independent—qualities that are prerequisites for judicial office. Chamber-Allotment Challenge (2018) In a less well-known but institutionally significant case, Mohana challenged the Supreme Court’s own criteria for allotting chambers to lawyers. The Court had imposed a cut-off date of 30 June 2016, requiring advocates to show a minimum of fifty appearances per year for two consecutive years within a specified window. Mohana argued that because she was designated Senior Advocate only in April 2015, the cut-off made it impossible for her to meet the requirement in her capacity as a Senior Advocate. The challenge raised questions about the fairness of administrative rules that inadvertently disadvantage newly designated Senior Advocates, and it demonstrated Mohana’s willingness to challenge the institution she serves when its rules are arbitrary. Section 6 Advocate by Numbers: A Data Portrait 38 Years in Practice ~30 Years at the Supreme Court 8+ Areas of Law 2015 Senior Advocate Designation 1996 AOR Qualification 10th Direct Bar Elevation (If Confirmed) 2nd Woman Elevated from Bar 38 New Sanctioned Court Strength Context matters. The Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength was raised from thirty-four to thirty-eight by a presidential ordinance in 2026, reflecting the growing case burden on the apex court. Of the thirty-two judges currently serving, only one is a woman—Justice B. V. Nagarathna. If Mohana’s appointment is confirmed, the number of women on the bench will rise to two out of a potential thirty-eight: approximately five per cent, in a country where women constitute nearly half the population. Historical data from the Supreme Court Observer shows that judges elevated directly from the Bar have served an average of 6.3 years on the bench, compared to the overall average of 5.4 years. The longer tenure reflects the fact that Bar-elevated judges are typically appointed at a younger age. Mohana’s exact date of birth has not been published in publicly available records, but her 1988 graduation date suggests a potential tenure of several years if appointed promptly. Section 7 Balanced Controversies: What the Critics Ask An EduLaw profile that omits controversy is not education; it is hagiography. Mohana’s recommendation raises legitimate questions that deserve honest treatment. The Visibility Gap Unlike judges, whose every opinion is a public document, Senior Advocates leave a relatively thin paper trail. Mohana’s contributions are attested by court records, Collegium recognition, and journalistic reporting, but the full scope of her advocacy is not captured by any searchable database. Critics of direct Bar elevations have long argued that this opacity makes it difficult for the public to evaluate whether an advocate merits a seat on the bench. The Collegium’s brief statement does not disclose the criteria it applied, the other advocates it considered, or the specific cases it found persuasive. This is a systemic issue, not a personal one, but it attaches to every direct elevation, including Mohana’s. The Numbers Problem: Women on the Bench Mohana’s elevation, if confirmed, will bring the number of women on the Supreme Court to two. Two out of thirty-eight. While her appointment is a step forward, it also underscores the glacial pace of gender parity in the higher judiciary. Since the Court’s founding in 1950, only eleven women have served as Supreme Court judges. The Collegium’s recommendation of Mohana alongside four male Chief Justices invites the question: why not more women? The answer lies in the pipeline—women remain underrepresented as High Court judges, as Senior Advocates, and as Advocates-on-Record—but the pipeline argument, however structurally accurate, can become an excuse for inaction. The Collegium’s Opacity The Collegium system itself remains contentious. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015—a case in which Mohana appeared—but critics continue to argue that the Collegium lacks transparency and accountability. Former Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur has publicly questioned the Collegium’s practice of announcing factors like “in line for CJI-ship” in some resolutions but not others, creating inconsistency. The Collegium’s recommendation of Mohana, like all its recommendations, does not include a published evaluation, a comparative analysis of other candidates, or a public hearing. Whether one supports or opposes the Collegium system, the process by which Mohana was recommended is, by design, opaque. The Chamber-Allotment Challenge Mohana’s 2018 petition challenging the Supreme Court’s chamber-allotment rules drew attention to the practical inequities faced by newly designated Senior Advocates. Some commentators viewed the challenge as a principled stand against arbitrary administrative rules; others saw it as a personal grievance dressed in constitutional language. Both readings are defensible. What is clear is that Mohana was willing to challenge the Court’s own rules—a trait that, in a judge, could translate into either institutional reform or institutional friction, depending on the issue. Section 8 How a Senior Advocate Operates Inside the Supreme Court: A Flowchart For readers unfamiliar with the Indian judicial system, the role of a Senior Advocate can be confusing. Unlike in many Western systems, where any qualified lawyer can argue before the highest court, the Indian Supreme Court has a layered system of access. The flowchart below illustrates how a case reaches the bench and where a Senior Advocate fits into the process. Client engages a lawyer → Lawyer briefs an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) → AOR files the case in the Supreme Court Registry → AOR briefs a Senior Advocate for oral arguments → Case listed before a bench → Senior Advocate argues before the bench → Bench deliberates and delivers judgment → Judgment becomes precedent The Senior Advocate occupies a peculiar position in this chain. She cannot accept a brief directly from a client; she must be engaged through an AOR or another advocate. She cannot draft and file petitions; that is the AOR’s role. Her function is to argue—to stand before the bench, synthesise complex facts and law into a coherent narrative, and persuade judges who may have read thousands of similar petitions. It is, in essence, the art of oral persuasion at the highest level. When a Senior Advocate is elevated to the bench, the transition is profound. She moves from one side of the courtroom to the other. She stops making arguments and starts evaluating them. She loses the advocate’s freedom to choose her cases and gains the judge’s obligation to hear whatever the roster assigns. She trades the intimacy of a client relationship for the solitude of judicial deliberation. And she exchanges the immediate feedback of a judge’s nod or frown for the delayed, permanent, and irrevocable feedback of a written judgment that will be cited—or criticised—for decades. This transition is rare. In the Supreme Court’s entire history, it has happened only nine times before Mohana. The advocates who made this leap—S. M. Sikri, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, Rohinton Nariman, Indu Malhotra, U. U. Lalit, P. S. Narasimha, K. V. Viswanathan, and a few others—have, on average, served longer than judges elevated from the High Courts, and several have gone on to become Chief Justice of India. Sikri, Lalit, and (prospectively) Viswanathan all reached or will reach the CJI’s chair. The Bar-to-bench pipeline, though narrow, has produced some of the Court’s most distinguished tenures. Section 9 Cases to Watch: Where Mohana’s Expertise Meets the Docket If elevated, Mohana will join a Court facing an unprecedented array of legal challenges. The following areas represent intersections between her known expertise and the cases likely to reach the bench in the coming years. Gender & Armed Forces The permanent-commission litigation is not over. Questions remain about rank parity, pension equivalence, and combat roles for women officers. Mohana’s involvement in earlier rounds of this litigation would give her both expertise and, potentially, a recusal obligation in specific cases. Banking & Insolvency India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the SARFAESI Act continue to generate complex litigation over creditor rights, asset valuation, and the balance between debtor protection and financial-system stability. Mohana’s banking-law practice positions her to contribute meaningfully. Digital Rights & IP The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is barely operational. Challenges to its provisions, questions about data localisation, and disputes over platform liability will inevitably reach the Supreme Court. Mohana’s IP and cybercrime experience will be relevant. Mediation & ADR Reform The Mediation Act, 2023, is India’s first comprehensive mediation statute. Its implementation will raise questions about enforceability of mediated settlements, the role of institutional mediation, and the Court’s own referral practices. A judge who has served as a Court-empanelled mediator brings practical knowledge. Service Law & Administrative Justice Service-law cases constitute a significant share of the Supreme Court’s docket. Questions about reservation in promotion, lateral entry into government service, and the rights of contractual employees are pending. Mohana’s experience in service-law matters would be directly applicable. Constitutional Structure The Collegium system, federalism, the scope of Article 142, and the limits of judicial review are perennial questions. A judge who argued the NJAC case will bring a lived understanding of the tensions between judicial independence and democratic accountability. “A good advocate sees the case from the judge’s chair before she stands up to argue. A good judge remembers what it was like to stand.” — Attributed to the Indian Bar tradition Section 10 The EduLaw Verdict: Why This Story Matters V. Mohana’s story is not a fairy tale. It is not the narrative of a prodigy who dazzled the bench from her first appearance. It is the story of a first-generation lawyer from a small-town college who spent thirty-eight years building a practice, one brief at a time, in a profession that rewards pedigree and penalises patience. She did not have a family name to open doors. She did not graduate from a National Law University. She did not have the social capital that smooths the path from law school to the Supreme Court Bar. What she had was a mother’s conviction, a mentor’s example, and an unyielding commitment to showing up—in courtrooms, in committee rooms, in mediation chambers, and in the pages of the Supreme Court Reports. If the Government of India accepts the Collegium’s recommendation, Mohana will take the oath and join a bench that is more powerful, more consequential, and more closely scrutinised than at any point in its history. The Supreme Court’s docket now includes questions about artificial intelligence, data sovereignty, climate obligations, military gender parity, and the constitutional limits of executive power. These are not questions that can be answered by legal doctrine alone; they require the kind of judgment that comes from decades of listening to clients, reading the room, and understanding that the law is not an abstraction but a lived experience with real consequences for real people. Mohana’s elevation, if confirmed, will also send a message about the kind of Court India wants. A Court that draws only from the High Court bench risks insularity; a Court that also draws from the practising Bar gains a perspective shaped by direct engagement with litigants, with the economics of legal practice, and with the procedural realities that judges, insulated by their rosters and their staff, sometimes forget. The ten direct Bar elevations in the Court’s history have, on average, produced longer tenures and, by some measures, more impactful jurisprudence. Mohana would join this tradition not as its most famous member but as its most symbolically significant: a first-generation woman lawyer from Coimbatore, mentored by the first woman elevated from the Bar, now poised to become the second. At EduLaw, we believe that understanding the people who interpret the Constitution is as important as understanding the Constitution itself. The law is not self-executing; it is given life by the judges who read it, the advocates who argue it, and the citizens who live under it. V. Mohana’s journey from Government Law College, Coimbatore, to the potential threshold of the Supreme Court is a story about merit, mentorship, and the slow, imperfect, but real possibility of a legal system that makes room for those who were not born into its inner circle. Whether she will be a great judge, a good judge, or a merely competent one, no one can say. Greatness on the bench is not predicted by the quality of one’s advocacy, the length of one’s practice, or the prestige of one’s mentors. It is revealed, case by case, in the solitude of chambers, in the discipline of judicial restraint, and in the courage to dissent when the majority is wrong. What we can say is this: the Collegium has chosen a woman who knows the Court from the inside, who has argued before its benches for three decades, and who has spent her career insisting that the law must serve everyone—not just those who can afford a Senior Advocate. That insistence, more than any single case or credential, is what makes this story worth telling. “Seek internships early. Visit trial courts first. Learn to draft before you learn to argue. And never forget that the law exists for the people who cannot afford to hire you.” — V. Mohana, advice to law students Know the Law. Know the People Who Shape It. This article is part of EduLaw’s “Know Your Advocates” series, dedicated to making India’s legal system accessible to every citizen. If the law belongs to the people, then the people must know who interprets it. Read More Explore Judgments Case Law Finder © 2026 EduLaw. All rights reserved. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Sources: LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, Supreme Court Observer, Legal Bites, SuperLawyer, The Interview Portal, Indian Kanoon, Supreme Court of India official website.