A developing debate is surrounding the manner in which the High Courts of India recruit legal researchers on a contract basis. Candidates are required to participate in very quick interviews that take no more than one to two minutes. This is in place of exams that are open to the public or written tests. This rapid-fire evaluation allows a lot of possibility for personal prejudice and partiality, and it frequently gives preference to applicants who have connections rather than those who are actually competent because of this. Critics contend that merit is not given sufficient weight, which in turn lowers the standard of research support that is made available to judges. The purpose of this article is to investigate the history of these researcher posts, investigate the selection process, emphasize claims of bias and nepotism, and assess the larger influence on the efficiency of the judicial system of the United States. At last, it offers some suggestions for reform actions.