Ex-CJI UU Lalit Appointed Professor Emeritus at SRM Law

In a significant development for Indian legal education, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Uday Umesh Lalit has been appointed as Professor Emeritus at SRM School of Law, part of SRM Institute of Science and Technology (SRMIST). The announcement coincides with Justice Lalit's inaugural visit to the campus, where he delivered a compelling lecture on the constitutional underpinnings and contemporary relevance of parliamentary privileges. This move not only elevates the institution's academic stature but also underscores a growing trend of apex court luminaries directly shaping the next generation of lawyers through mentorship and real-world insights.

Justice Lalit, one of the rare jurists elevated directly from the bar to the Supreme Court, brings unparalleled expertise to SRM. His appointment signals SRM's commitment to experiential learning, transforming abstract constitutional principles into practical wisdom for students navigating India's complex legal landscape.

A Trailblazing Jurist's Journey to the Apex Court

Justice UU Lalit's career is a testament to excellence in legal advocacy and adjudication. Admitted to the bar in 1983, he practiced extensively in the Supreme Court, handling high-profile cases before his elevation as a judge in 2014—one of the few direct inductions from practice to the bench. Serving as the 49th CJI from August 2022 to November 2022, his tenure and prior judgments have profoundly influenced modern Indian jurisprudence, particularly in realms of individual rights, gender justice, and institutional accountability.

Notably, Justice Lalit was part of the Constitution Bench in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), which by a 3:2 majority declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, marking a pivotal advance in women's rights under Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty). Similarly, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), he contributed to the unanimous striking down of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery. This ruling reaffirmed constitutional values of dignity, equality, and personal autonomy, dismantling patriarchal notions embedded in colonial-era laws.

These decisions highlight Justice Lalit's rights-centric approach, blending textual interpretation with evolving societal norms. His bar background endowed him with a practitioner's pragmatism, evident in his emphasis on clear reasoning—a trait he would later impart to SRM students.

The Appointment: Bridging Theory and Practice

The appointment of Justice Lalit as Professor Emeritus was hailed by SRM School of Law Dean Prof P Sree Sudha in a press release. "At SRM, we believe the law is best learned from those who have shaped it. It is a profound honour to welcome Hon’ble Justice UU Lalit as our Professor Emeritus. His presence transforms textbook theory into living inspiration, mentoring our students to become the thoughtful, principled leaders our legal system needs."

This role, typically reserved for retired luminaries making ongoing contributions, positions Justice Lalit to guide curriculum development, guest lectures, and research. In an era where the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocates multidisciplinary, skill-based legal training, such appointments are transformative. SRMIST, known for its innovative programs, gains a beacon whose insights could redefine clinical legal education and moot court simulations.

Lecture on Parliamentary Privileges: Constitutional Foundations and Judicial Evolution

During his campus visit, Justice Lalit captivated audiences with a lecture titled "Parliamentary Privileges: Constitutional Basis and Contemporary Relevance." He traced the concept's origins to the British Parliament's evolution, where privileges emerged to shield legislators from executive overreach and judicial interference, ensuring deliberative freedom.

Adopted in India via Articles 105 (Parliament) and 194 (State Legislatures) of the Constitution, these privileges encompass freedoms of speech in the House, immunity from court proceedings for official acts, and the right to regulate internal proceedings. Justice Lalit emphasized: “Parliamentary privileges are not personal advantages, but institutional safeguards designed to preserve the dignity, independence, and effectiveness of legislative bodies.”

He underscored the need to interpret these in harmony with fundamental rights, cautioning against absolutism. While Article 194(3) initially drew from pre-1978 British House of Commons privileges (later codified in the UK), judicial gloss has circumscribed their scope to prevent abuse.

Key Cases Shaping the Contours of Legislative Immunity

Justice Lalit dissected landmark rulings that delineate privilege boundaries. In M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (1959), the Supreme Court upheld legislative privilege over press freedom, prioritizing Article 194(3) (then unamended) against Article 19(1)(a). This created tension, later moderated post the 44th Amendment.

Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy (1970) reinforced absolute immunity for statements made within the House, even if defamatory, as essential for fearless debate. Justice Lalit highlighted the advisory opinion in In Re: Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures (1964, re-1972), where the Court balanced legislative autonomy with judicial review, affirming privileges' justiciability vis-à-vis fundamental rights.

These precedents, Justice Lalit noted, guide contemporary application amid challenges like social media scrutiny and Right to Information (RTI) Act demands. Recent controversies—such as expunged remarks in Parliament or MP suspensions—echo these debates, making his lecture timely.

Interactive Insights: Mentoring the Next Generation

The lecture segued into an interactive Q&A, where students queried constitutional interpretation, legislative powers, and judicial oversight. Justice Lalit stressed "clarity of thought, consistency in legal reasoning, and adherence to professional ethics." He urged full judgment readings over fragmented excerpts, warning: "A fragmented reading of case law often leads to incomplete or incorrect interpretations."

He advocated disciplined habits, analytical rigor, and constitutional grounding for complex issues. "Approach the study of law with a sense of responsibility," he advised, fostering principled advocacy over adversarial zealotry.

Implications for Legal Education and Practice

Justice Lalit's SRM engagement has profound implications. It exemplifies a symbiotic judiciary-academia nexus, akin to former CJI DY Chandrachud's university affiliations or Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul's endowments. For legal pedagogy, it injects viva voce insights into moot courts, internships, and ethics courses—critical amid Bar Council critiques of rote learning.

On parliamentary privileges, his elucidation reinforces judicial tempering: privileges enable democracy but must yield to equality and expression. In practice, this informs litigators challenging overreach (e.g., defamation suits against legislators) and lawmakers drafting privilege codes.

Broader impacts include elevating SRM's NIRF rankings, attracting top talent, and inspiring peer institutions. Amid judicial retirements, such roles sustain jurisprudential continuity, countering politicization fears.

Conclusion: Elevating India's Legal Pedagogy

Justice UU Lalit's appointment as Professor Emeritus at SRM School of Law heralds a new era where those who author history mentor its chroniclers. By demystifying parliamentary privileges and championing ethical reasoning, he equips students for a judiciary demanding nuance over dogma. As India grapples with constitutional stresses, Lalit's living legacy ensures future lawyers uphold the delicate balance of power, rights, and accountability—fortifying the republic's legal edifice.