While dissenting from the majority, Justice K Vinod Chandran has observed that no training schedule, before or after recruitment, can give a budding jurist, be it a lawyer or a judge, the feel of life and its worries, throbbing in every brief, which he or she experiences in practise.

The Court, by a majority of 2:1, has modified its previous judgment, which mandated three years of legal practice for candidates seeking direct recruitment as Civil Judges (Junior Division), and reduced the requirement to one year of experience at the bar.

The Court held that candidates who are selected shall undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by six months of law clerkship under the District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Service, and thereafter another six months of law clerkship under a sitting judge of the concerned High Court.

The Court allowed all law graduates to appear in the examinations for lower judicial service without meeting the requirement of three years of practice immediately and provided for a transitional relaxation till March 31, 2027.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice August George Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment and directed that the recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027 will require the candidates to have a minimum of one year of verified active practice at the Bar.

Justice K Vinod Chandran has observed, "Behind every arguing counsel, whose ability is often measured by the felicity of expression and dexterity, on feet, there are an abundance of skills acquired over the years. Proficiency in drafting, adeptness at research, expertise in cross examination, precision in formulating arguments and much more, are to be learned by the young; observing first hand to become a complete professional. 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 petitions sought reconsideration of the Court's May 2025 decision, which restored the three-year practice requirement, contending that the rule deterred bright law graduates from joining the lower judiciary immediately after completing their education.

The majority has observed that the three-year mandate can be satisfied through a structured combination of State Judicial Academy training and supervised probation, which will count as equivalent to Bar practice.

The First issue dealt with by Justice Chandran was whether it is permissible for a 3-Judge Bench to alter the condition of a three-year practice for appearing in the CJ (JD) recruitment examinations given by a Coordinate Bench.

It was observed, "The argument raised is that the stipulation of three years’ experience removed as per the 3rd All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India case [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ]; a decision by a three-judge bench, has been restored in the 6th All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India case [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184 ] by a Coordinate Bench, which is not permissible. Quite attractive, in the normal circumstances, but outrightly fallacious in the scenario of a ‘continuing mandamus’".

It was added that the 2nd AIJA case was by a three-judge bench and the 3rd AIJA case, which removed the stipulation, was a Coordinate Bench. Hence, the Court, in a three-judge Bench, was considering the augmentation and skill-building of the State Judiciary, issuing directions in the best interest of preserving the independence of the judiciary, the cornerstone of any functional and effective judicial dispensation, by resorting to a ‘continuing mandamus’.

On the Second issue of whether there should be equation with other public services, where there is no requirement of an experience before recruitment even into the higher echelons of the Civil Services, being IFS/IAS/IPS etc, Justice Chandran observed, "Unlike in the public services, there is no supervisory control exercised by the officers in the hierarchy of the State Judiciary, insofar as the essential duties of a Judicial Officer. Adjudication of cases which involves procedural aspects, recording of evidence, it’s analysis and delivery of judgments; completely at the discretion of the Officer, upon which/whom none can interfere or impinge."

It was added that there cannot be any equation to public services; even recruitments to the higher echelons, where too there is a supervisory hierarchy of administration in place, as distinguished from the justice delivery system.

The Third issue which was dealt with by Justice Chandran was regarding the three-year practice rule. Justice Chandran raised a question: 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?

"It is not the complete entrustment of a case for conducting the trial or argument before the 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. The knowledge garnered from witnessing how a trial is conducted, the procedure shaped, as also arguments addressed within the courts, informs the keen student of how to go about the profession", he opined.

Lastly, the Fourth question was whether there could be a strict training regime extending to more than the period now provided, with the new recruits being posted as an understudy to existing Judicial Officers, ensuring skill enhancement.

Answering it, Justice Chandran opined than rather than encouraging academically proficient students to opt for a judicial career, it would deter them.

"First of all, they will have to continue for two years without pay and allowances and without the period being reckoned 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 training hiatus would see the Courts unmanned and the vacancies unfilled; multiplying by reason of retirements and promotions", Justice Chandran observed.

It was added that the 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. There would also be two classes created of the recruits from the same source; lawyers with one year's practice and those with two, three or more, in the identical recruitment.

Further, it was added that 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 allegations of hostile discrimination.

It was concluded that there is no ground for review. 

Justice Chandran observed, "Assessment of performance of officers, evaluations for promotions; individually, by the Administrative/Portfolio Judges and collectively, by the Administrative/Standing Committee and the Full Court, which has administrative control of the District Judiciary provides the High Courts with valuable inputs and enlightening insights to evaluate the manner in which the justice delivery system can be bettered. The words employed in the written submissions, are disparaging and unbecoming, which are only to be rejected with the disdain it deserves."

Accordingly, he disagreed with the majority's view.

Cause Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 904]

Appearances:

Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves, Pinky Anand, Basava Prabhu Patil, Maninder Acharya, VD Makhija, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Maninderjit Singh Bedi, BK Mishra, Apoorv Kurup, Jaideep Gupta and Rahul Kaushik

Respondents: ASG Aishwarya Bhati

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: