From the Bar to the Bench: What Should a Future Judge Know Before the Examination?

“Cumulatively across all states, an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 candidates appear for Judicial Services Examinations each year.” 

By Ladhi Jain
Rajasthan High Court

The question is no longer simply whether a candidate should practise law before becoming a judge. Instead, the more important question is what kind of experience should prepare someone for the role of a judge.

For years, the legal profession has debated whether candidates should be required to practise law before becoming eligible for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Supreme Court’s August 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India has given this debate a new dimension.

The Court’s earlier 2025 decisions had restored a three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service. In its latest judgment, the Court retained the principle of prior practical exposure but reduced the pre-examination requirement to one year of actual practice in the District Courts for recruitment notifications issued on or after 1 April 2027.

The more significant aspect of the judgment, however, lies in what follows the examination.

A selected candidate will undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy, followed by one year of structured Law Clerkship, six months under the District Judiciary and six months under a sitting High Court Judge. The proposed pathway can therefore be understood as:

One year of practice → Judicial Service Examination → One year of judicial training → One year of supervised clerkship.

This is more than a reduction of the practice requirement from three years to one. It represents a broader change in the architecture of judicial preparation.

“A Civil Judge is required to deal with questions affecting life, liberty, property, and personal rights of litigants.” 

~ Chief Justice Surya Kant, speaking for himself and Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court of India, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (2026)

A judicial examination can test knowledge of statutes, precedents and legal principles. Courtroom practice, however, develops a different set of skills. It exposes an aspiring judge to the manner in which arguments are formulated, evidence is presented, procedural applications are made and pleadings are tested in actual proceedings. It also teaches an advocate to distinguish what is legally significant from what is merely persuasive. Such experience cannot be acquired entirely through textbooks or examination preparation.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued for strengthening judicial training after recruitment and called for continuing legal education and a more uniform training framework across the country. This highlights an important aspect of the reform: the question may not be one of practice versus training, but of practice supplemented by structured training.

“Neither the knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system.”

~ Chief Justice Surya Kant, speaking for himself and Justice Augustine George Masih, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (2026)

The decision to prescribe one year of practice also raises an important distinction. Three years of nominal practice does not necessarily translate into three years of meaningful courtroom experience. Conversely, one year of genuinely verified practice, followed by structured judicial training and supervised clerkship, may provide a more deliberate form of preparation.

The debate should therefore move beyond the question of whether one year is sufficient. The more fundamental question is what that year should contain.

• Should candidates receive meaningful exposure to trials, evidence, arguments and procedural applications? 
• Should there be a clearly defined minimum standard for what constitutes “actual practice”? 
• Should practice be established merely through enrolment and certification, or through demonstrable participation in judicial proceedings?

The same principle applies after selection. Judicial academies must not merely ensure completion of prescribed training. The emphasis should also be on developing and evaluating practical competence.

The new framework therefore attempts to create a bridge between the Bar and the Bench. It neither leaves judicial preparation entirely to courtroom practice nor treats examination performance as sufficient preparation for judicial office.

Ultimately, the success of the reform may depend less on whether the prescribed period is one year or three than on the quality of the experience acquired during that period and the training that follows.

This perspective is further reflected in the separate opinion of Justice K. Vinod Chandran in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (2026). Emphasizing the importance of prior Bar experience, he observed that a review of the earlier three-judge Bench decision prescribing three years’ practice before entering judicial service was not imperative.

“With all the respect at my command I am unable to persuade myself that a review of the well-considered, well thought out decision of a three-judge bench, prescribing a three-year ‘practice’ at the Bar, before embarking on a judicial career, is imperative.”

~ Justice K. Vinod Chandran, separate opinion, Bhumika Trust v. Union of India (2026)

Justice Chandran further described the courtroom as “the most profound of all Classrooms”, underscoring the formative value of practical courtroom experience before entering judicial service.

BEFORE A PERSON LEARNS TO WRITE A JUDGMENT, THEY MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND HOW TO NAVIGATE A COURTROOM.