In the current recruitment framework, it is possible for newly minted law graduates in India to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) without significant prior practice at the Bar. This arrangement has raised concerns about the balance between theoretical training and practical experience, especially given that seasoned advocates are placed in the position of appearing before such newly inducted judges. Recent advertisements in at least one state exemplified this trend by inviting applications from candidates with little or no courtroom experience, provided they possessed strong academic credentials. The result is a growing debate on whether an anthropologically incongruous situation has been created, one in which traditional professional hierarchies are upended and theoretical knowledge is over-relied upon in judicial appointments.
Anthropologically incongruous scenario
It has been observed that the rapid elevation of fresh graduates to the Bench creates an anthropologically incongruous scenario. In a typical professional setting, those with greater experience mentor and lead the less experienced. Here, however, the hierarchy is reversed: advocates with decades of litigation experience find themselves arguing cases before judges who have barely graduated law school. This role-reversal is seen as unsettling the organic mentor pupil dynamic of the legal profession. Anthropological incongruities arise when a junior in age and experience wields authority over vastly senior practitioners, a state of affairs at odds with the usual patterns of deference and learning in human institutions. Such inversion of the experience hierarchy can strain courtroom interactions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of India recently remarked that the two-decade experiment of recruiting judges straight from law college “has not been a successful experience” and has “led to many problems” All India Judges Association v Union of India (2025). The systemic implications are clear: practical wisdom and social maturity, which ordinarily accrue with years of practice, risk being bypassed.
Theoretical knowledge vs reality
The direct entry system also invites criticism for its theoretical over-reliance. These young appointees often have exemplary academic records and strong theoretical grounding. However, adjudication is an arena where book-learning meets human reality. It is thus argued that an over-reliance on classroom knowledge and pre-service training may ill-equip a judge for the nuances of real disputes. The Supreme Court underscored this in a recent judgment (All India Judges Association v Union of India (2025)), observing that neither knowledge from law books nor training courses are adequate substitutes for first-hand experience of court operations. In practice, judges must manage volatile courtrooms, gauge witness credibility, and understand the unwritten conventions of the Bar skills that are honed only through exposure. A framework that allows minimal-exposure candidates to preside from day one risks producing what might be called theoretical judges: technically qualified, yet thrust into an adjudicatory role without having been tempered by the rigours of practice. A judge’s decisions affect life, liberty, property, and reputation from the very first day, and critics worry that without prior advocacy or clerkship experience, a new judge’s decision-making could lean too heavily on abstract categories, lacking the context that seasoned lawyers bring.
Contrast in experience requirements
A contrast to this situation is the Supreme Court’s own Advocate-on-Record (AOR) system, which embodies a more grounded approach. To qualify as an AOR, a status that merely entitles an advocate to file and argue cases in the Supreme Court, one must satisfy demanding prerequisites that ensure structured legal immersion. Experience is mandatory: an advocate must have at least four years of prior practice followed by one year of apprenticeship under a senior AOR. Only after this five-year period of hands-on training can the advocate even sit for the AOR examination. Notably, this exam is itself intensely practical. It tests candidates on real-world procedural and advocacy skills: Supreme Court practice and procedure, the art of drafting pleadings, professional ethics, and leading case law. The content is designed such that only those who have deeply engaged in litigation can grasp its nuances.
The recent direction of the Supreme Court restoring a minimum practice requirement for new judges suggests a convergence toward this pragmatic ethos aligning judicial recruitment with the common-sense notion that adjudicatory wisdom must be built on experiential foundations (All India Judges Association v Union of India (2025).
Human development before judging
Underlying these structural critiques is a broader insight about personal growth in the legal profession. It has been wisely noted in legal education discourse that aspiring lawyers and by extension judges should not rush into the law in isolation from broader human experience. As Nicholas McBride counsels, “Come to the law as a well-developed human being. The best lawyers are those who can see more than legal categories; they can see the human reality behind them” (McBride, 2007). In this view, the law is not an abstract game of case books and statutes; it is a human pursuit aimed at resolving real conflicts and upholding justice in lived communities. A judiciary populated by individuals who have matured through both legal and life experience is more likely to appreciate the human realities that underlie legal disputes. Requiring a few years of practice or similar exposure before donning the judicial robe thus serves a deeper purpose: it helps ensure that those who judge others have themselves evolved as professionals and persons. By recalibrating the entry criteria to value practical engagement and personal development, the judicial services can fortify themselves against the anthropological mismatches that a purely academic selection may inadvertently produce. In doing so, the justice system affirms that experience before judging is not a sentimental luxury, but a functional necessity for delivering judicious, humane decisions.
