{"id":394026,"date":"2026-08-22T13:30:55","date_gmt":"2026-08-22T08:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=394026"},"modified":"2026-08-24T15:27:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T09:57:52","slug":"supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The courtroom is “the most profound of all Classrooms”: Inside Justice Chandran’s dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a batch of matters concerning the eligibility requirement of prior practice at the Bar for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), a three-Judge Bench of Surya Kant CJ, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.<\/span>, in a 2:1 verdict reconsidered the directions issued in its judgment dated 20 May 2025 restoring the requirement of 3 years’ practice at the Bar. The Court, while upholding the underlying need for prior exposure to the working of courts, held that the requirement had to be implemented in a manner which was fair to fresh and recent law graduates and did not unnecessarily narrow the field of candidates available to the subordinate judiciary.<\/p>\n

The majority held that there was no ground for review and that prior experience at the Bar is essential before a law graduate embarks upon a judicial career. The Court, however, differed on the manner in which such experience ought to be acquired and the training regime to be followed.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span><\/span> Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judge Recruitment | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

Justice K. Vinod Chandran<\/span>, dissenting, agreed that some prior experience of the working of the Court is desirable for new entrants into the judicial service, but disagreed with the structured 2-year training programme proposed for candidates having 1 year’s experience at the Bar. In his opinion, the controversy should rest with the 3-year practice requirement.<\/p>\n

Justice K. Vinod Chandran’s Dissent:<\/p>\n

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while dismissing the review petitions, held that there was no “error apparent on the face of the record” warranting review of the judgment in the 6th All India Judges’ Assn. case<\/span>. He observed that the arguments raised in review were, in substance, arguments on the merits of the judgment and could not be permitted to enlarge the well-defined contours of review jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

On the contention that a coordinate Bench could not restore the 3-year practice requirement which had earlier been removed by a three-Judge Bench in All India Judges’ Assn.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, (2002) 4 SCC 247<\/a>, K. Vinod Chandran, J., observed that the argument was “outrightly fallacious” in the context of the continuing mandamus in the All-India Judges’ Association litigation.<\/p>\n

The dissenting Judge noted that the first All India Judges’ Assn. case<\/span> (AIJA case<\/span>), (1992) 1 SCC 119<\/a>, itself emanated from a three-Judge Bench and had issued directions for improving the conditions of service of judicial officers in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary. The second AIJA case<\/span>, (1993) 4 SCC 288<\/a>, introduced the 3-year service condition as a uniform requirement across the country, while the third AIJA case<\/span>, (2002) 4 SCC 247<\/a>, removed the stipulation.<\/p>\n

According to K. Vinod Chandran, J., the 6th AIJA case<\/span> was also a continuation of the same mandamus and was concerned with augmentation and skill-building of the State judiciary. Hence, the mere fact that the earlier and subsequent directions emanated from coordinate Benches did not furnish a ground for review.<\/p>\n

Judicial Service Cannot Be Equated with Other Public Services<\/p>\n

Rejecting the submission that judicial recruitment should be equated with recruitment to services such as IAS, IPS and IFS, K. Vinod Chandran, J., observed that judicial service stands on a different footing. Unlike ordinary public services, there is no supervisory control exercised by officers in the hierarchy of the State judiciary over the essential judicial functions of a judicial officer. Adjudication, recording of evidence, appreciation of evidence and delivery of judgments remain within the discretion of the judicial officer. The Judge observed that a wrong judicial order cannot, in itself, lead to a disciplinary enquiry and can only be corrected through statutory appeals, revisions or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Though the general conduct and integrity of a judicial officer may be scrutinised administratively, judicial acts are kept outside such scrutiny to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Thus, there could be “no equation to public services”, even where recruitment is made to higher echelons of the civil services.<\/p>\n

Three Years at the Bar Provides Experience Which Training Cannot Replicate<\/p>\n

K. Vinod Chandran, J., rejected the argument that 3 years’ practice at the Bar would be futile because a fledgling lawyer may not be entrusted with briefs or given substantial opportunities to argue before Courts. The Judge observed that professional development during the initial years is not confined to arguing cases. Familiarity with files, interaction with senior lawyers and the Bar, observing trials and arguments, drafting, research, cross-examination and formulation of arguments collectively mould a young lawyer into a complete professional.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that:<\/p>\n

“No training schedule, before or after recruitment, can give a budding jurist; be it a lawyer or a judge, the feel of the life and its worries, throbbing in every brief; which she experiences in practise.”<\/p>\n

According to K. Vinod Chandran, J., the courtroom is the “most profound of all classrooms<\/span>”, where the forensic and analytical skills necessary for adjudication are learnt by observing the functioning of the justice delivery system.<\/p>\n

Experience at the Bar and Independence of the Judiciary<\/p>\n

K. Vinod Chandran, J., further opined that the requirement of experience must be viewed in the context of the special position occupied by a judicial Officer. A Presiding Officer’s mistake places a litigant at peril and the remedy may lie only through an appeal. A lawyer’s mistake, on the other hand, can be remedied by an experienced Presiding Officer, a seasoned senior or an astute colleague.<\/p>\n

K. Vinod Chandran, J., therefore, held that experience at the Bar is necessary before entrusting a law graduate with the decision-making process of a Court. He observed that the earlier norm of requiring experience at the Bar had been departed from, and the opinion of a vast majority of High Courts, which remain in constant touch with the functioning of the District Judiciary, indicated that such experience is imperative.<\/p>\n

High Courts’ Experience Cannot Be Disparaged as Anecdotal<\/p>\n

The Judge rejected the criticism that the decision to restore the experience requirement was based merely on “anecdotal-observations, prejudices and subjective reviews” of the High Courts. He noted that the High Courts exercise administrative control over the District Judiciary and are continuously involved in assessing the general conduct and judicial performance of judicial officers. Assessments for promotions, evaluations by Administrative and Portfolio Judges, consideration by Administrative and Standing Committees and the Full Court provide valuable institutional inputs regarding the functioning of the justice delivery system. According to K. Vinod Chandran, J., such institutional experience cannot simply be characterised as anecdotal or subjective.<\/p>\n

Structured 2-Year Training programme not favoured<\/p>\n

While agreeing with the fundamental proposition that prior experience of the working of courts is desirable, K. Vinod Chandran, J., disagreed with the proposed structured 2-year training programme for candidates having 1 year’s practice at the Bar. He noted that such a regime could require recruits to continue for 2 years without full pay and allowances, with the period not being reckoned as service. In most States, trainee Civil Judges (Junior Division) are presently inducted into the judicial service, assigned specific courts and paid full emoluments applicable to regular Civil Judges (Junior Division).<\/p>\n

The Judge observed that keeping recruits on a reduced remuneration for 2 years would be prejudicial to them and could also impose a strain on the exchequer, while vacancies in the courts would remain unfilled. He further pointed out the difficulty of requiring a sitting High Court Judge to certify the suitability of a trainee before transition to active service, as well as the possibility of creating 2 classes of recruits depending upon their previous experience at the Bar.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

K. Vinod Chandran, J., concluded that experience at the Bar is essential for law graduates who are “steeped in academics<\/span>” to acquire a feel for “the affairs of man and the travails of a litigant<\/span>” before deciding their destinies.<\/p>\n

“A Presiding Officer’s mistake puts to peril a litigant, and her remedy is only by way of an appeal. A lawyer’s mistake can be remedied by an experienced Presiding Officer, a seasoned Senior or an astute colleague, or even by a ministerial staff of the Court with first-hand experience of the proceedings. The requirement of experience is the need of the hour and essential in the immediate future, otherwise we would be accused of creating a cadre of careerists rather than of jurists capable of enriching a robust system, alive to the needs of the nation, society and its people.”<\/p>\n

With “profound respect and intense regret<\/span>” K. Vinod Chandran, J., therefore dissented from the view that the judgment required review and held that there was no scope for reconsideration of the 3-year practice requirement.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the review petitions stood dismissed, while the interlocutory applications and the writ petition were directed to be placed before the regular court concerned with the continuing mandamus.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Legal Practice Requirement for Civil Judge Eligibility | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

[Bhumika Trust<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1687<\/a>, decided on 21-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Judgement authored by: Majority opinion: Chief Justice Surya Kant<\/a>, Dissent: Justice K. Vinod Chandran<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J., held that 3 years’ practice at the Bar is essential before entry into the judicial service, as practical courtroom experience cannot be adequately substituted by a structured training programme, and therefore found no ground to review the earlier judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67541,"featured_media":394036,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[112847,112853,112848,95888,33370,112852,57831,34924,84108,3516,81498,7741,58527,70060,112850,37369,12391,112854,112851,5363,112849],"class_list":["post-394026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-3-yr-practice-rule-rule","tag-aija-case","tag-bar-practice","tag-chief-justice-surya-kant","tag-civil-judge","tag-civil-judge-eligibility","tag-civil-judge-recruitment","tag-judicial-officers","tag-judicial-recruitment","tag-judicial_service","tag-judicial-training","tag-judiciary","tag-justice-augustine-george-masih","tag-justice-k-vinod-chandran","tag-law-clerkship","tag-law-graduates","tag-legal-education","tag-practice-requirement","tag-state-judicial-academy","tag-supreme-court","tag-three-year-practice"],"yoast_head":"\nJustice Chandran's Dissent: Civil Judge Practice Rule | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The courtroom is "the most profound of all Classrooms": Inside Justice Chandran's dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The courtroom is "the most profound of all Classrooms": Inside Justice Chandran's dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"headline\":\"The courtroom is “the most profound of all Classrooms”: Inside Justice Chandran’s dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1515,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"3 yr practice rule Rule\",\"AIJA Case\",\"Bar Practice\",\"Chief Justice Surya Kant\",\"civil judge\",\"Civil Judge Eligibility\",\"Civil Judge recruitment\",\"Judicial Officers\",\"judicial recruitment\",\"judicial service\",\"judicial training\",\"Judiciary\",\"Justice Augustine George Masih\",\"Justice K Vinod Chandran\",\"Law Clerkship\",\"Law Graduates\",\"Legal education\",\"Practice Requirement\",\"State Judicial Academy\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Three-Year Practice\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Justice Chandran's Dissent: Civil Judge Practice Rule | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"description\":\"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Justice Vinod Chandran dissent Civil Judge\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/22\\\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The courtroom is “the most profound of all Classrooms”: Inside Justice Chandran’s dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\",\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Malika Bhola\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/malika-bhola\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Justice Chandran's Dissent: Civil Judge Practice Rule | SCC Times","description":"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The courtroom is \"the most profound of all Classrooms\": Inside Justice Chandran's dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment","og_description":"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Malika Bhola","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"The courtroom is \"the most profound of all Classrooms\": Inside Justice Chandran's dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Malika Bhola","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/"},"author":{"name":"Malika Bhola","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"headline":"The courtroom is “the most profound of all Classrooms”: Inside Justice Chandran’s dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment","datePublished":"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/"},"wordCount":1515,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp","keywords":["3 yr practice rule Rule","AIJA Case","Bar Practice","Chief Justice Surya Kant","civil judge","Civil Judge Eligibility","Civil Judge recruitment","Judicial Officers","judicial recruitment","judicial service","judicial training","Judiciary","Justice Augustine George Masih","Justice K Vinod Chandran","Law Clerkship","Law Graduates","Legal education","Practice Requirement","State Judicial Academy","Supreme Court","Three-Year Practice"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/","name":"Justice Chandran's Dissent: Civil Judge Practice Rule | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-22T08:00:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-24T09:57:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"description":"Justice K. Vinod Chandran dissents in Civil Judge Practice Rule verdict, holding that courtroom experience at the Bar cannot be replaced by structured judicial training.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Justice Vinod Chandran dissent Civil Judge"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/22\/supreme-court-modifies-3-year-practice-rule-for-civil-judge-recruitment-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The courtroom is “the most profound of all Classrooms”: Inside Justice Chandran’s dissent on the 3-year practice rule for Civil Judge appointment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1","name":"Malika Bhola","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Malika Bhola"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/malika-bhola\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Blog_Post_13.3.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67541"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=394026"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394026\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":394153,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/394026\/revisions\/394153"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/394036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=394026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=394026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=394026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}