As far as I am concerned, it is important for me to focus on how I reach that milestone rather than the milestone itself because one has to work for everything, and nothing comes free. How I am perceived in these years as a judge -- the kind of work I do, the dedication I exhibit -- is more important to me than simply attaining that position, however short it may be. My father’s life is a lesson for me, even though he passed away in 1997. I think of him every day -- both my parents. In moments of doubt, I always ask myself what my father would have done in the situation, and that becomes an important consideration for me.

With the distinction of being part of one of only two father-child duos to reach the position of Chief Justice of India, how do you reflect on this unique legacy, and what does it mean to you personally and professionally?

For me, it’s a privilege to have been born to Justice Venkataramiah, who was already a senior lawyer when I was born. I am very humbled by the legacy. This legacy keeps me going because I must uphold the standards he set. It’s all positive -- nothing negative about it.

Your father held significant roles in Karnataka before ascending to the Supreme Court. In light of his leadership in the judiciary, how do you think he would have viewed the growing presence of women in the legal profession and the judiciary today? Are there any areas of concern?

There is no area of concern, and it is a welcome change. My father appointed the first woman judge, justice Fathima Beevi, to the Supreme Court during his tenure as the CJI in 1989. Since then, women judges have proved themselves exceptionally well. There can be no doubt about women in the judiciary. I always say that women in the judiciary are not just auxiliary; they are central. Justice and adjudication truly align with the Constitution when more women are on the bench because they bring fresh perspectives.

How would you describe the judicial philosophy your father embodied during his tenure as Chief Justice of India? Do you see a continuity or a significant shift in judicial approaches since his time?

I think there has been a change with continuity. My father was deeply entrenched in the values of the Preamble and the Constitution. He believed in using the Constitution to render justice to the citizens and innovating its provisions for the betterment of society. He saw the Constitution as a living tree, a dynamic, organic entity that must adapt to changing times. While we cannot stray from our foundations, there must always be an interpretation that aligns with the evolving needs of society.

Justice Venkataramiah was part of benches that delivered over 700 judgments. What lessons can be drawn from his work ethic and commitment, particularly as the judiciary faces an increasing case backlog today?

Pendency is a relative subject because the moment you file a case today, it becomes pending tomorrow. With a trebling population, litigation has naturally increased, leading to a flooded docket. However, this reflects the public’s faith in the judiciary. The challenge lies in navigating pendency with effective strategies to reduce it. Every Chief Justice, whether of a High Court or the Supreme Court, has sought to address this. Pendency should not be seen negatively; it represents trust in the system.

As someone who has witnessed the judiciary from the perspective of a daughter, an advocate, and now a judge, how do you compare the challenges faced by judges in your father’s era to those faced by the judiciary today?

Challenges have always existed, but they evolve with each decade. The nature of litigation has changed; we no longer see the same kinds of cases we had in the 50s, 80s, or 90s. Today, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a significant challenge. While PIL was initially a boon for Indian citizens, it has also been misused. Courts now carefully discern which cases to entertain. It is crucial to focus on challenges and adopt a balanced approach, considering both the system’s perspective and that of justice-seekers outside it.