1723534562.png){kind=small}
RJS 2024 Topper Interview | Livie Jain (Rank 40)
April 23, 2025
Overview: In a society where professional choices are often dictated by market trends or familial expectations, choosing to pursue the judiciary as a career reflects a unique blend of courage, social commitment, and intellectual honesty.
The story of Livie Jain Rank 40 RJS 2024, a recent law graduate from National Law University, Delhi, showcases a powerful inner alignment with the values of justice, fairness, and reformative thinking.
What follows is not just a summary of her responses in a judiciary interview, but an intimate look at the mind of a future judge in the making- how she reasons, analyses, and reflects on law as more than a career- a calling.
Livie Jain cracked Rajasthan Judicial Services 2024 (RJS) with Rank 40.
Academic Background and Initial Inclinations
RJS Topper Livie Jain holds a graduation degree in law from NLU Delhi, a university that offers ample exposure to firm internships, court visits, and real-world legal practice. Despite multiple opportunities to pursue a firm-based career, she chose to take a different route.
“I realised through both offline and online internships that my skill set is better suited for the judiciary. I enjoy working on evidence, hearing both sides, and arriving at decisions objectively. I also value work-life balance—something that’s challenging in corporate culture.”
She further adds that she prefers courtroom interaction over researching in a cubicle, highlighting a fundamental preference for dynamic environments and people-facing roles.
Know More: How to prepare for judiciary exams
Favourite Subject and Legal Inclinations
When asked about her favourite subject in law, she humbly responded:
“There isn’t one particular favourite, but I find the Indian Penal Code (IPC) especially fascinating.”
Her enthusiasm for criminal law is not superficial. She reflects on the transformation of IPC into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and explains its broader implications on jurisprudence and society.
On IPC vs BNS: Substance and Symbolism
She drew clear and structured distinctions between the two:
Continuity of Core Offences:
Most of the offences under IPC have been retained under BNS. However, some obsolete provisions like adultery and Section 377 have been repealed.
Inclusion of Contemporary Crimes:
BNS has added new offences like mob lynching and acts of terrorism, which reflect India’s evolving socio-legal landscape.
From ‘Dand’ to ‘Nyaya’ – A Philosophical Shift:
When asked about the shift in terminology from “Dand” (punishment) to “Nyaya” (justice), her insight was profound:
“The use of ‘Nyaya’ signals a reformative attitude. ‘Dand’ carries a punitive connotation. ‘Nyaya’ is more restorative and empathetic. It reflects a justice-oriented approach focused on reform, not retribution.”
On Death Penalty in a Reformative System
When probed about the presence of death penalty in a supposedly reform-oriented legal system, she responded with mature nuance:
“The presence of death penalty doesn’t negate our reformative stance. Our judiciary uses it in only the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. It is not a contradiction—it is a safeguard. The system balances reform with deterrence.”
This demonstrated not only a strong grip on doctrinal concepts but also a sensitivity toward jurisprudential evolution.
Prepare for RJS Prelims & Mains 2025 with India's Biggest Judiciary Institute
Application-Based Scenario Questions
The candidate was then tested on her ability to apply legal reasoning in practical scenarios:
Mistake of Fact: Poison or Sugar?
Scenario: Person A gives B a substance thinking it’s poison. It turns out to be sugar. Is this an offence?
“No offence has occurred. This is a case of legal impossibility. The intent existed, but the act lacked a harmful consequence. The means to commit a crime were not present, so no criminal liability arises.”
Article 20 and the Phrase “Any Person”
She correctly interpreted Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, explaining:
“The term ‘any person’ refers to an accused person who is compelled to be a witness against himself. It safeguards both under-trial and convicted individuals against self-incrimination.”
Belief vs Faith, and the Challenge of Abstract Concepts
When asked to distinguish between belief and faith, she candidly admitted limited clarity:
“I’d like to make a guess—faith might be more religious in nature, while belief can extend to general practices or values.”
Her honesty was appreciated. The feedback reminded her to avoid overextending herself when unsure and to confidently state limitations.
Halala Practice in India: A Sensitive Issue
On the current legal position of Nikah Halala, she acknowledged the ongoing judicial scrutiny:
“I am aware that the matter is pending before the court. It’s a practice where a divorced Muslim woman must marry and divorce another man before remarrying her first husband. The legal and constitutional validity is under challenge.”
Read More - Personal Interview Preparation Tips for Judiciary Exams 2025
On Career Choice Despite NLU Placement Options
Why not join a top firm post-NLU, especially with promising placements?
“I experienced both internships and found that I don’t see myself researching in an office setting all day. I prefer courtroom interaction, decision-making, and public service over private practice.”
Judiciary and Work-Life Balance: A Pragmatic View
She acknowledges that judicial roles demand time and mental stamina, but counters with perspective:
“I agree that work-life balance is hard in judiciary too. But since I love this work, I believe I can manage my responsibilities and still maintain personal time.”
Her calm and confident tone indicated that she is mentally prepared for the rigours of the job.
Analytical Thinking and Decision-Making
When asked about her skills:
“I believe I am a logical thinker and can reason impartially. I can listen to both sides, evaluate evidence, and take decisions without bias. I also don’t get easily swayed, which I think is important for judicial temperament.”
Legal Doctrines and Procedural Questions
Negligence and Mistake in Medical Jurisprudence
She discussed the difference between:
- "Likely to cause death" (used in Culpable Homicide) – based on the accused’s knowledge.
- "Death in ordinary course of nature" – a medical conclusion.
NI Act and Rule of Presumptions
She was asked about Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a civil offence with criminal flavour.
“The rule of presumption under Sections 139 and 140 shifts the burden on the accused to disprove the liability once the issuance of cheque is proven.”
Direct vs Indirect Evidence
In a bomb blast scenario, a person who heard the sound testified in court. Would this be direct evidence?
“Yes, it’s direct evidence. He heard the sound himself—it is a first-hand perception and not hearsay.”
Final Feedback from the Panel
The feedback session was constructive and detailed.
Strengths:
- Confident and composed demeanour
- Polite, respectful tone
- Structured answers
- Clear understanding of constitutional and criminal law fundamentals
Areas to Improve:
- Maintain neutral expressions when unsure—don’t let nervousness show
- Avoid unnecessary elaboration when knowledge is limited
- Read more about new criminal laws (BNS, BNSS)
- Structure the work-life balance answer with realism
- Avoid overuse of generalised claims like "noble profession" unless linked with specifics
Interview Etiquette Reminders:
- Knock and seek permission before entering
- Greet collectively
- Sit only when asked
- Keep attire formal (white salwar recommended)
- Use minimal makeup and no accessories
- Don’t engage in political debates—give balanced legal responses
- Avoid anxiety-inducing conversations outside the interview room
Conclusion
From structured thinking to honest reflection, this aspirant demonstrated the essential characteristics of a future judicial officer. Her preparation may still be a work in progress, but her mental framework, legal foundation, and ethical clarity position her strongly for success.
The judiciary doesn’t just need people who know the law. It needs those who understand justice. And she, undoubtedly, is walking the right path.