Farewell Reflections and Privacy Ruling in Indian Courts - 2026-01-24

Farewell Reflections and Privacy Ruling in Indian Courts

In a week that encapsulated the past, present, and future of India's judicial landscape, the legal community witnessed poignant transitions, robust constitutional safeguards, and invaluable guidance for aspiring lawyers. As Justice VG Arun bid farewell to the Kerala High Court after a distinguished career, the Madras High Court delivered a landmark ruling protecting school students' privacy from invasive state data collection. Meanwhile, top performers in the CLAT and AILET PG examinations shared strategies that underscore the rigorous preparation needed to join the ranks of tomorrow's legal luminaries. These events not only highlight the judiciary's evolving role but also prompt reflections on gender diversity, privacy rights, and the foundational training of future advocates—issues critical for legal professionals navigating an increasingly complex constitutional framework.

Justice VG Arun's Poignant Farewell to the Kerala High Court

The Full Court Reference at the Kerala High Court on January 23 marked the end of an era as Justice VG Arun demitted office upon reaching the age of superannuation. In a speech that blended gratitude, introspection, and forward-looking optimism, Justice Arun encapsulated his 34-year journey in the legal profession, from his enrollment as an advocate in 1989 to his elevation to the bench.

Born to the late TKG Nair, a renowned writer, journalist, and public intellectual, and Smt. Sulochana V. Nair, Justice Arun hailed from a family deeply intertwined with the law. His mother was the sister of former Kerala High Court Judge Justice V. Sivaraman Nair, and cousins included Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court, Senior Advocate V. Rajendran, and the late Advocate Anil Sivaraman, whom Justice Arun affectionately remembered as a close confidant.

After earning a degree in Economics from Baselius College, Kottayam, and a law degree from the Kerala Law Academy, Thiruvananthapuram, Justice Arun began practicing at the Kozhikode bar under Advocate V. Sreekumar Menon. He shifted to the Kerala High Court in December 1990, training under Senior Advocate T.R. Raman Pillai. His editorial role with the Indian Law Reports (Kerala Series) for nearly 13 years allowed him to immerse himself in judgment writing, a skill he credited for shaping his judicial philosophy. He also maintained a close association with the Kerala Law Journal.

Presiding over the reference, Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, a close colleague, lauded Justice Arun's "intellectual rigour, elegant judgment writing, and administrative contributions," including his tenure at the Kerala Judicial Academy. Quoting Alexander Pope, Justice Nambiar noted that Justice Arun's judgments reflected "true ease in writing [that] comes from art, not chance," balancing doctrinal precision with practical wisdom. He also lightheartedly anticipated the "re-emergence" of Justice Arun's wit and humor in retirement, long restrained by judicial decorum.

Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup, invoking Socrates' ideals of a fine judge—"to hear courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially"—praised Justice Arun's unwavering judicial independence. As a practitioner, Kurup recalled his "measured submissions" and composure; as a judge, his commitment to equality in the courtroom. Kurup highlighted key rulings, such as those affirming the right to non-religious status in official records, permitting changes in religious affiliation for school documents, protecting prisoners' freedom of expression, curbing nighttime police surveillance, and upholding women's reproductive autonomy under Article 21. Other decisions addressed medical negligence rights for the accused, affordability of breast cancer drugs, compensation for vaccine-related deaths, and assisted reproductive technology access for elderly couples.

Peeyus A. Kottam, President of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA), described Justice Arun as a "bar-friendly judge" whose courtroom fostered "discipline without severity." He emphasized how junior advocates thrived under his encouraging presence, free from intimidation.

In his address, Justice Arun attributed his successes to collective efforts, thanking his family, seniors, colleagues, bar members, and staff. He took pride in nurturing young lawyers and editing the ILR Kerala Series, which deepened his understanding of judgments. However, he expressed perturbation over the "minuscule" representation of women on the bench despite "excellent lady lawyers" at the bar, hoping for change soon. His interactions with young judicial officers in districts like Wayanad, Thalassery, and Alappuzha filled him with hope for Kerala's judiciary, "a cut above the rest."

Guided by the "trinity of liberty, equality, and fraternity"—echoing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—Justice Arun urged continued efforts to uphold these democratic pillars. Concluding with humor and grace, he stated: "Retirement, I'm told, is not an end, but a punctuation mark, perhaps a semicolon rather than a full stop. I look forward to reading judgements without having to write them, to revisiting books, long neglected and to discovering other life beyond our rooms is as orderly as the causelists never was. On that note I take leave of this Court, grateful once again to my colleagues on the bench, the members of the bar, and with enduring respect for the institution, I was privileged to serve. Thank you."

The court rose in applause for 10-15 seconds—a rare gesture—signaling the deep respect Justice Arun commanded.

Madras High Court Safeguards Student Privacy Against State Overreach

Shifting focus southward, the Madras High Court recently quashed a controversial directive from the Tamil Nadu Education Department, reinforcing the sanctity of privacy rights for minors in educational settings. The ruling, stemming from a writ petition, addressed a September 4, 2025, order by the Member Secretary of Model Schools, mandating the collection of sensitive personal and social background data from students in Classes 9 to 12.

The directive required teachers to gather responses to 25 probing questions via the Education Management Information System (EMIS) portal. These covered whether students belonged to refugee, nomadic, gypsy, migrant, or oppressed caste communities; exhibited gender non-conformity; were survivors of abuse or violence; or had family histories of substance abuse. The petitioner argued that this invasive process violated students' right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, exposing vulnerable children to stigma and discrimination.

The state justified the collection under its parens patriae role, claiming it would enable "special attention" for needy students. However, the court found this explanation lacking. Counsel for the authorities failed to articulate specific benefits, prompting the bench to observe: “It is not explained as to what is the special attention that is are going to show to the students. The information are very sensitive and manner in which they are going to collect, will necessarily traverse into the privacy of the young students."

Rejecting the parens patriae defense, the court emphasized that such broad intrusions into personal lives—without clear safeguards or purpose—undermined constitutional protections. This decision builds on the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right, and extends it to educational contexts where state welfare must not override individual dignity.

For legal practitioners, this ruling serves as a cautionary tale for government data initiatives, particularly in education and welfare schemes. It may influence similar challenges under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, urging consent mechanisms and data minimization.

Charting the Path: Strategies from CLAT and AILET PG Toppers

As the judiciary bids adieu to seasoned figures like Justice Arun, the influx of new talent remains vital. Chanchal Mantri, a top ranker in both CLAT and AILET PG, offered practical insights into cracking these gateways to elite LLM programs. Her year-long preparation intensified from June, anchored by a clear vision: pursuing academia through an LLM, forgoing distractions like internships or placements in her final undergraduate year.

Mantri outlined four pillars for CLAT PG: covering major and minor subjects; studying landmark judgments from recent years and core areas like constitutional, family, and transfer of property laws; mastering passage-based questions requiring analytical depth. For AILET, she stressed direct, conceptual clarity over interpretive exercises, demanding doctrinal precision.

"You have to cover the major and minor subjects, landmark judgments of the current and recent years and landmark judgments of the subjects as such like the important case laws of constitutional law, family law or transfer of property law," she advised. Reiterating her motivation, Mantri said: "I had a very clear mindset that I want to pursue academia and LL.M. is the necessary natural step ahead."

These strategies resonate with Justice Arun's emphasis on nurturing young lawyers, highlighting the need for early exposure to judgments—mirroring his ILR editorial experience. For educators and mentors, they underscore integrating recent case law into curricula to prepare students for a bench that values "doctrinal precision and practical wisdom."

Legal Implications and Broader Impacts

These stories weave a tapestry of judicial continuity and reform. Justice Arun's farewell spotlights persistent gender imbalances, with women comprising less than 20% of higher judiciary judges despite qualified advocates—a disparity that could dilute the "trinity" of equality he championed. His rulings on reproductive rights and personal liberty exemplify Article 21's expansive scope, influencing ongoing debates on autonomy.

The Madras decision fortifies privacy jurisprudence post-Puttaswamy, limiting state parens patriae claims in non-emergency contexts. It may cascade to policies like Aadhaar-linked education or caste-based scholarships, compelling lawmakers to prioritize anonymized, purpose-limited data collection. For litigators, it bolsters arguments in privacy writs, potentially increasing PILs against bureaucratic overreach.

Meanwhile, CLAT insights reveal the competitive edge in legal education, where clarity on landmarks like those Justice Arun authored can distinguish aspirants. This preparation pipeline addresses bar concerns, like those raised by KHCAA, fostering a diverse, skilled cohort to tackle issues from privacy to gender equity.

Impacts on practice are profound: Retirements like Arun's necessitate diverse appointments to maintain institutional respect; privacy wins deter invasive surveillance, easing defense in education-related cases; and robust exam prep ensures the next generation upholds fraternity amid rising caseloads. Together, they affirm the judiciary's role in balancing state power with individual rights.

Conclusion: An Evolving Judiciary in Focus

From Justice Arun's semicolon of retirement to the Madras court's firm full stop on data overreach, and the forward momentum of exam toppers, India's legal sphere pulses with resilience. These developments invite professionals to champion diversity, vigilance, and preparation—ensuring the rule of law endures as a beacon of equity. As Arun steps away, his legacy, alongside these rulings and aspirations, promises a judiciary ever attuned to constitutional imperatives.