‘First duty is to fight the system’: Advocates, judges tell law students to put Constitution first

When Ananya Chaudhary of Gujarat National Law University asked how courts should respond when public morality appears to clash with constitutional morality at Justice Unplugged by The Hindu Group and VIT Chennai, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy drew a clear line. Public morality and public interest, she said, are distinct. Courts are constitutionally bound to uphold public interest and constitutional morality. “The mob is not something that should inform a judgment,” she said, cautioning that majoritarian sentiment cannot override constitutional guarantees.

Constitutional morality, judicial accountability, artificial intelligence in legal practice and the ethical responsibilities of young lawyers dominated discussions at Justice Unplugged 2026, where young lawyers and law students engaged senior members of the Bar on the changing nature of law and justice in India.

On whether young lawyers are increasingly drawn to money and power, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the profession demands courage and commitment. “Your first duty is to fight the system in every possible way,” he said. Lawyers must stand up when fundamental rights are violated. “If someone’s rights are infringed and you worry about money instead of fighting for that person, the country will not change,” he added.

Responding to a question from the audience on the Supreme Court’s recent direction expressing concern over a Class 8 NCERT chapter on “corruption in the judiciary”, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who said he is counsel in the matter, described the chapter as “incomplete” and “selective”. “Suddenly, out of the blue, there were two pages on judicial matters,” he said, arguing that isolating the judiciary without contextualising corruption across institutions risked unfairly targeting an institution that has historically acted as a bulwark against government excess and a defender of liberty.

Saurabh, a student at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, asked how judges in the lower courts can be sensitised to social realities. Justice S. Muralidhar said judges come from diverse backgrounds and may not always have exposure to the intersection of law and poverty. Training programmes, prison visits and field exposure form part of judicial orientation, he noted.

But deeper change requires sustained self-education. “If a lawyer has prejudices about people, then he will not be able to look at them as human beings,” he said. Emphasising the role of intellectual discipline, he added, “The qualities don’t come overnight. It comes with constant reading. The more you read, the more refined your questions will be.”