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.He contended this will create careerists, not jurists in the country.
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 question that arises immediately is that when a senior lawyer or litigant would not entrust a case to a lawyer who is fresh out of college, will it be safe to entrust such persons with the decision-making process in a case; when even legal services require an amount of experience to ensure; not mere representation, but quality assistance.
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.
Follow us
