Relaxing 3-year practice rule will create careerists, not jurists: Supreme Court Justice Vinod Chandran dissents

Justice K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court on Friday dissented from the top court's decision to modify the three-year law practice requirement for appointment as civil judge across India [Bhumika Trust v Union of India and Others]

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran today delivered a major ruling on the review petitions challenging the top court's 2025 verdict which had mandated a three-year law practice requirement for entry to judicial service.

CJI Kant and Justice Masih ruled that effective from April 2027, candidates will need only one year of law practice to apply for civil judge posts and, upon qualifying the examination, will have undergo one year of intensive training at the State judicial academy, followed by six months of clerkship each at the district court and the High Court.

However, Justice Chandran said the three-year practice criterion mandated by the 2025 verdict is imperative for a judicial career. The judge said there was no ground for reconsideration of the earlier ruling of 2025.

He noted that even today, a vast majority of High Courts feel that experience at the bar is imperative for stepping into a judicial career,

"I am of the definite opinion, as expressed in the unanimous opinion, that experience at the Bar is essential for students right out of college; steeped in academics, who should have a feel of the affairs of man and the travails of a litigant, before deciding their destinies. This was the earlier norm; the departure from which has proved counterproductive, as is evident from the opinion of the High Courts, a clear reflection and indication of the mind of the largest stakeholder; the litigant public," the judge said.

Calling the requirement of bar practice essential, Justice Chandran said the relaxation ordered by the Supreme Court may lead to a cadre of careerists than capable jurists.

"The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future, otherwise we would be accused of creating a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system, alive to the needs of the nation, society and its people."

The judge asked how it would be safe to entrust decision-making to a person fresh out of college when even a senior lawyer or litigant would not entrust the case to them.

He highlighted the importance of not just the practice at bar but of a young lawyer's interactions with senior lawyers and other counsel.

"It is not the complete entrustment of a case for conducting the trial or argument before Court, that moulds a lawyer in the initial years. It is the familiarity with the files, a lawyer acquires from the office of a Senior and the interactions she has with the fraternity of lawyers in the corridors of the Court that initiates her in the profession," Justice Chandran said.

He added that while a judge’s mistake puts to peril a litigant, and her remedy is only by way of an appeal, a lawyer’s mistake can be remedied by an experienced judge, a seasoned senior or an astute colleague, or even by a ministerial staff of the court with first-hand experience of the proceedings.

Justice Chandran emphasised that proficiency in drafting, adeptness at research, expertise in cross examination, precision in formulating arguments and much more can be learnt by a young lawyer only over years of practice.

"No training schedule, before or after recruitment, can give a budding jurist; be it a lawyer or a judge, the feel of the life and its worries, throbbing in every brief; which she experiences in practise," the judge said.

Justice Chandran also opined that the structured training regime ordered by the Court could discourage academically proficient students, as the period of training would neither carry full pay nor be counted as service.

"As of now, but for three States; all of the other States induct trainee CJ (JD) into the judicial services, assign them specific courts and enable full emoluments as applicable to a regular CJ (JD). Continuation for two years on half the pay of CJ (JD) will be prejudicial to the new recruits, and a strain on the exchequer, without any constructive work being elicited," the judge said.

He also said that the training hiatus would see the Courts unmanned and the vacancies unfilled. Justice Chandran also expressed his reservations about the requirement of evaluation of these candidates by a High Court judge.

"Further direction insofar as the satisfaction of the sitting judge of the High Court under whose supervision, the trainee judicial officer has to serve as a law clerk would create a further hurdle in the smooth transition from training to an active service on probation."

Justice Chandran further said that now there would be two classes of the recruits from the same source - lawyers with one year practice and those with two, three or more, in identical recruitment.

"If all were to be put to the same training regime, then there would be the issue of treating unequals as equals. If all are not put under the same regime then there could be allegation of hostile discrimination," the judge added.

[Read Judgment]