Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna has underscored the importance of courtroom experience for those aspiring to join the judiciary, observing that a prospective judge must understand the manner in which advocates approach and conduct litigation.
Addressing judicial aspirants, Justice Nagarathna emphasised that practical exposure to advocacy cannot be adequately substituted by academic knowledge or preparation for competitive judicial examinations. Experience at the Bar, she indicated, gives an aspiring judge a first-hand understanding of the realities that lawyers and litigants encounter during the course of proceedings.
Justice Nagarathna made the observations while delivering the first Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, on April 4, 2026.
Her remarks assume significance against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decision restoring the requirement of a minimum three years of legal practice for candidates seeking appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
In All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court in May 2025 directed that candidates appearing for entry-level judicial service examinations must have at least three years of practice as an advocate. The Court’s decision represented a departure from the regime under which fresh law graduates could directly compete for entry-level judicial posts without prior experience at the Bar.
Justice Nagarathna’s observations highlight the rationale underlying the practice requirement. According to her, exposure to litigation enables a judicial officer to appreciate the professional challenges faced by advocates and, more importantly, the consequences that procedural developments may have for litigants.
A lawyer’s experience in dealing with actual cases, she explained, provides lessons that cannot necessarily be acquired from textbooks. An advocate learns how to formulate submissions, respond to judicial queries, seek appropriate relief and deal with procedural contingencies that arise unexpectedly during proceedings.
Such experiences can become particularly relevant when that advocate later assumes judicial office.
For instance, an advocate who has personally dealt with the consequences of a matter being dismissed for non-appearance would have a practical understanding of the significance of an application seeking restoration. Such courtroom experiences, Justice Nagarathna suggested, can help a judge appreciate the circumstances underlying applications that come before the court rather than viewing procedural questions purely from an abstract standpoint.
She further stressed that understanding advocacy is an important component of effective adjudication. A judge is required to assess submissions advanced by counsel, identify the real controversy between the parties and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the issues requiring determination. Familiarity with the manner in which lawyers prepare and present cases can consequently assist a judicial officer in managing proceedings more effectively.
Justice Nagarathna also advised judicial aspirants not to treat the three-year practice requirement merely as a statutory hurdle to be crossed before appearing for the examination. Instead, she encouraged them to use the period at the Bar as an opportunity to develop professional competence and acquire first-hand exposure to litigation.
Her advice was particularly directed towards understanding the “tactics and strategy” of advocates. In her view, a successful judge must be able to appreciate the manner in which lawyers build their cases, advance arguments and navigate procedural and factual complexities.
The emphasis on practical legal experience is consistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning while restoring the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial appointments. The Court had stressed the value of candidates having actual exposure to court proceedings, litigants and the functioning of the legal system before taking on the responsibilities of adjudication.
The requirement, however, was directed towards future recruitment processes, with safeguards prescribed for selections that had already commenced before the judgment.
Justice Nagarathna has also addressed concerns surrounding the possible impact of the practice requirement on women candidates seeking judicial appointments. Rather than viewing the additional period at the Bar as an obstacle, she has advocated measures aimed at strengthening women’s participation in legal practice and ensuring that more women lawyers acquire the experience necessary for advancement within the profession.
Greater participation of women as advocates, law officers and panel counsel, among other institutional measures, could also help create a larger pool of experienced women lawyers who may subsequently enter the judiciary, her broader observations suggest.
The issue thus extends beyond the question of eligibility for judicial service. At its core is the larger question of what kind of preparation is necessary for the exercise of judicial power.
Justice Nagarathna’s message to aspirants is that judicial competence cannot be developed solely through the study of statutes, precedents and legal theory. The experience of appearing in court, dealing with litigants, confronting procedural difficulties and observing advocacy from within the courtroom can provide a different and indispensable dimension to a judge’s professional development.
The three years spent at the Bar, therefore, need not be perceived as a delay in entering judicial service. Rather, they can serve as a foundational period during which an aspiring judge learns the practical workings of litigation and develops an appreciation of the competing interests that come before a court.
For judicial aspirants, the takeaway from Justice Nagarathna’s advice is clear: before occupying the Bench, one must understand the realities of the Bar. Familiarity with the methods of advocacy and the practical challenges of litigation can ultimately contribute to a more informed, balanced and effective exercise of judicial discretion
The post A Judge must understand how lawyers litigate: Justice B.V. Nagarathna urges Judicial Aspirants to gain bar experience appeared first on India Legal.