Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the practice requirement for entry-level judicial service from three years to one year.
In his dissent, Justice Chandran stressed that the forensic and analytical skills of an adjudicator are best developed through experience in the legal profession. He described the courtroom as “the most profound of all classrooms”, where aspiring judges can closely observe the practical functioning of the justice system.
He further warned that insufficient professional experience could result in creating “a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists” capable of understanding the needs of the justice system, society and the people.
Justice Chandran therefore favoured retaining the three-year practice requirement, emphasising that courtroom experience is essential before assuming the responsibility of a Presiding Officer.
Compiled and Researched By: Adv. Anjani Singh