One year at the Bar, two years in training: What it now takes to become a judge

The Supreme Court's decision to reduce the mandatory practice requirement for becoming a judge from three years to one year has sparked a debate about the adequacy of courtroom experience gained through practice alone. Former Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi argued that a minimum of three years of practice is necessary to develop the maturity and understanding required for the role.

He highlighted instances of newly appointed judges exhibiting rudeness, arrogance, and a lack of courtroom etiquette, which can negatively impact court proceedings.

Conversely, Supreme Court lawyer Vivek Narayan Sharma and Advocate Siddharth Sijoria of Clavius Legal contended that the new framework could work effectively if the judicial academy training and clerkship are rigorous and properly implemented. They argued that the new structure combines actual Bar experience with judicial training and clerkship, rather than merely replacing three years of professional preparation with one year.

The key question, according to Sharma and Sijoria, is not simply whether a lawyer has spent a certain number of years at the Bar, but whether they have acquired the practical understanding of how courts function, how litigants and lawyers behave, how evidence and arguments unfold, and how proceedings are managed. They emphasized that the Bar experience offers invaluable, hands-on learning that cannot be fully replicated through academy training alone.

Both lawyers agreed that practical experience at the Bar is crucial, but they differed on the length of time required for meaningful preparation. While some believe three years is necessary, others argue that the quality of Bar experience, rather than the quantity of years spent, is what truly matters in preparing someone for the responsibilities of a judicial officer.