During a Convocation Ceremony at Gujrat National Law University , Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant offered a memorable analogy from T20 cricket noting that just as all-rounders may not be suited to bowl death overs, not every lawyer is suited for every kind of legal work. The observation came in the context of a broader judicial emphasis on specialisation and appropriate deployment of legal skills in contemporary practice.
The remarks were made during the hearing of a case involving multiple complex legal issues where the Court was evaluating the quality of legal representation and the strategic deployment of counsel in different segments of litigation. Although the case itself touched on procedural as well as substantive law, it was CJI Kant’s sport-inspired comparison that drew attention for its practical insight into the legal profession’s evolving demands.
Referring to the dynamics of T20 cricket a fast-paced format where specialised roles are crucial CJI Kant observed:
“In T20 cricket, just because a player can bat and bowl does not automatically make them suitable to bowl at the death. Similarly, in legal practice, a lawyer might be broadly capable, but specialised issues require specialised expertise.”
He stressed that specialisation whether in arbitration, taxation, intellectual property, criminal law, or constitutional litigation is increasingly becoming essential as matters before courts grow in complexity and require deep domain knowledge. The Chief Justice’s cricket metaphor underscored that effective legal advocacy is not only about general ability but about matching expertise to the demands of a particular legal challenge.
Although the Court did not disallow counsel from participating in the matter, the Chief Justice’s observations came against wider judicial concern about ensuring high-quality presentation of arguments and efficient legal process. By likening legal roles to sports roles, the CJI encouraged advocates to consider where their strengths lie and to invest deeply in areas where they intend to practice consistently.
This theme resonates with an ongoing conversation in Indian legal circles about the professionalisation of legal practice, the rise of specialist law firms and counsel, and the need for structured legal education that prepares practitioners for specific branches of law criminal, corporate, tax, administrative and international law, among others.
CJI Kant’s remarks reflect a judicial trend favoring specialised legal skills to enhance the quality of justice delivery. In recent years, both the Supreme Court and various High Courts have highlighted the value of domain expertise in complex areas like economic offences tribunals, arbitration, environmental regulation, and intellectual property resolution suggesting that general advocacy might not always serve the best interests of justice in technical cases. Law firms, too, increasingly maintain dedicated practice areas rather than broad general practices, mirroring global norms where legal practitioners are expected to build deep knowledge in particular legal niches.
In that sense, the “T20 death-overs” remark though casual in tone encapsulates a serious point: the justice system functions best when legal specialists are empowered to work on matters that align with their expertise, especially in a world where legal questions are cross-disciplinary and highly technical.
Legal professionals and commentators have welcomed the CJI’s analogy, seeing it as a call for:
- Early specialisation in legal education and postgraduate programmes;
- Mentorship and training that deepen subject-matter mastery;
- Strategic teaming in litigation where counsel roles are aligned with their strengths rather than general ability alone.
Senior advocates have pointed out that while generalist skills remain essential, deep expertise especially in fields like international arbitration or competition law increasingly determines the outcome of high-stakes litigation and advisory work.
CJI Kant’s embrace of a cricket analogy a sport deeply embedded in Indian culture helped crystallise a complex professional message in everyday terms. Just as teams succeed in T20 by deploying specialists at key moments, so too does the legal system benefit when lawyers match their strengths to the specific demands of the law.
The Court’s colloquial but pointed commentary underscores an evolving philosophy: judicial efficiency, fairness, and quality representation are best served when lawyers view their practice areas as strategic roles, not generic titles.
