1723534562.png){kind=small}
Niharika Diwan: A Journey of Purpose, Law, and Quiet Determination
April 22, 2025
Overview: In a world where career choices are often driven by glamour or peer pressure, there are a few who choose Niharika Diwan (DJS Topper 2024): A Journey of Purpose, Law, and Quiet Determination a path of impact and integrity. One such voice is that of Niharika Diwan (DJS Topper 2024), a focused and articulate judiciary aspirant whose academic rigor and personal resilience form the core of her story.
Born in Bhiwani, Haryana, Niharika completed her schooling in her hometown before pursuing her graduation in Political Science from Lady Shri Ram College, University of Delhi. Later, she pursued her LL.B. from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, completing it in 2020.
Why Not Haryana Judicial Services? A Conscious Decision to Serve in Delhi?
Although originally from Haryana, Niharika Diwan has been living and studying in Delhi for over a decade. When asked why she didn’t aim for Haryana Judicial Services, her answer was clear and rooted in her personal circumstances:
“It has been more than 10 years since I shifted to Delhi. I am fully settled here. My goal is to be selected in Delhi Judicial Services and serve here long term.”
This clarity reflects not only her practical understanding of where she belongs but also her desire for stability and contribution within a familiar ecosystem.
Prepare for Judiciary: Join India's Best Judiciary Institute
What Inspired Her to Become a Judge?
With a background in Political Science, Niharika’s entry into law was not instant. Initially introduced to law by her parents, her genuine interest blossomed during her undergraduate years when she took a paper on Introduction to Law. The subject captivated her. Later, at Campus Law Centre, her exposure to professors, seniors, and peers prepared her mentally for the judiciary as a career.
“It was only after entering Campus Law Centre that I made up my mind to pursue Judicial Services seriously. The environment, the mentorship—it all came together.”
Join: Judiciary coaching institute in Delhi
Why Not Litigation? A Practical Perspective?
Niharika’s decision to not opt for litigation comes from a deeply personal and practical space.
“Due to some health-related concerns and physical mobility challenges, I believe a role in the judiciary will suit me better. It allows me to stay in one place and still contribute meaningfully to the legal system.”
Her understanding of her own strengths, limitations, and long-term goals is mature and thoughtful.
Read More - Personal Interview Preparation Tips for Judiciary Exams 2025
Testing Her Legal Acumen: Questions from the Evidence Act and CrPC
The panel tested her knowledge on various legal topics, and she responded with confidence and conceptual clarity. Some key takeaways:
Admissibility of Evidence- Sections 5 to 55, Indian Evidence Act
Niharika explained that admissibility is governed by the discretion of the judge, and only relevant facts are admissible. She also cited Section 165, which empowers judges to put questions to discover or obtain proper proof.
Dying Declaration- Section 32(1)
She highlighted that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if found reliable. It does not require corroboration but must be scrutinized carefully. She also touched upon the difference between Indian and English law on dying declarations:
- In India, a dying declaration is admissible even if not made in anticipation of death.
- In English law, anticipation of death is a necessary precondition for admissibility.
Understanding Privileged Communication Between Spouses
When asked whether a husband and wife can be compelled to testify against each other, Niharika (DJS Topper 2024) clarified:
- In cases where the husband and wife are parties against each other, privileged communication may be disclosed.
- However, in general, communication during marriage remains protected, and they cannot be compelled to testify against each other.
Burden of Proof vs. Onus of Proof
Though she admitted to not recalling the precise legal language, Niharika understood the core distinction:
- Burden of Proof is the obligation to prove a fact.
- Onus of Proof may shift during the trial based on the presentation of evidence.
She confidently explained the difference in standard:
- In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- In civil cases, the standard is preponderance of probabilities.
Evidentiary Standards for an Alibi
When asked how an accused needs to prove an alibi, she answered that it must be shown on the basis of probability, enough to cast doubt on their presence at the crime scene—thus aligning with Indian jurisprudence.
FIR as Evidence and the Dudh Nath Pandey Case
Though she couldn’t fully recall the case facts, she made a genuine attempt and cited Section 154 (FIR) and its relevance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Res Gestae: Scope and Limitations
Niharika correctly pointed out that Res Gestae (Section 6, IEA) includes spontaneous facts forming part of the same transaction. However, she cautioned that issues arise when third-party perceptions or reactions- not the incident itself- are presented, which may dilute the evidentiary value.
CRPC and Section 313 Examination
On being asked about Section 313 CrPC, she stated that it is used by courts to examine the accused to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. However, such statements cannot solely be used for conviction.
Insulting vs. Outraging Modesty of a Woman
While Niharika couldn’t recall the legal distinction immediately, her honesty reflected her authenticity and willingness to learn—key traits in a judicial officer.
Must Read - Criminal Procedure Code Notes for Judiciary Preparation
Kidnapping vs. Abduction
She differentiated the two concepts well:
- Kidnapping: Taking away a minor or person of unsound mind from lawful guardianship.
- Abduction: Using force or deceit to compel a person to go from one place to another—regardless of age.
When asked about an orphaned child with no guardian, she clarified that abduction would apply in that case, as kidnapping requires removal from lawful guardianship.
Complaint vs. Police Report
Niharika highlighted that:
- A complaint is filed by a person before a magistrate (when police don’t register FIR).
- A police report is filed after investigation under Section 173 CrPC.
Know: DJS Recruitment Notification
Case Diary: A Crucial Tool in Investigation
She described a case diary as a document maintained by the investigating officer under Section 172 CrPC, recording the day-to-day progress of an investigation. It is not admissible as evidence but helps courts ensure fair investigation.
Conclusion
Niharika’s responses reflected a solid foundation in law, practical understanding of the judiciary, and the quiet confidence that comes from preparation and purpose. What stood out most, however, was her composure, integrity, and honesty—qualities that cannot be taught but are essential in any judicial role.