JUDGING THE JUDGES: REVIEWING THE 2025 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE MANDATE AMID PERSISTING COMPETENCY GAPS AND JUDICIAL ERRORS IN THE INDIAN JUDICIARY
By Gokul B., B.B.A LL. B] (Hons) at VIT School of Law, Chennai, India
&
Dr. Saji Sivan S, Associate Professor, VIT School of Law, Chennai, India
ABSTRACT
This article presents a critical examination of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling that necessitated at least three years in practice before one is eligible to be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) to effectively solve three major issues raised by the people in regards to incompetence, delays, and irrationality within the lower judiciary in India. The key goal is to investigate whether the required experience is actually relevant to increasing judicial competence and is only a ceremonial obstacle or is the investigated issue influenced by the wider structural and constitutional issues defining Indian judiciary performance. By analysing constitutional provisions, court decisions, and practices in such jurisdiction as the UK, USA, and Canada, the article concludes that judicial experience is not the sole guarantee of competence in the judiciary. These main findings indicate that even highly experienced judges continue to deliver biased or retrogressive rulings as a result of systemic lack of training; monitoring and remedial action; constitutional awareness and inclusiveness. These gaps are compounded by lack of review of judicial performance on a periodic basis and lack of effectiveness in post-appointment training, both of which contribute to reduce the integrity and accountability of the judicial system. The article states that while the 2025 mandate is a step in the right direction that is commendable, it is insufficient by itself. Competence in judges should be construed in a more comprehensive manner by including the clarity of ethics, analytical ability to interpret, compassion, and lifelong study. In order to rebuild the confidence of people as well as constitutional integrity, it is essential that the Indian judiciary needs to institutionalize transparency in its appointments, appraisals and long-term training based on constitutional morality and social justice.
Keywords – Competences, Constitutional Morality, Judicial Integrity, Guardian.
I. INTRODUCTION
In constitutional democracies, the judiciary is always the cornerstone of justice, being the protector and guardian of the Indian Constitution.[i] Often, the citizen’s first interaction with the legal system happens through the district and subordinate judiciary. Although the role of judges is undeniably pivotal, increasing attention has been given to their competence and preparedness, particularly those entering the system directly from the law school without prior legal experience. Public dissonance was gradually growing regarding how judgments are made; how slow decision-making is and improper application of laws which implies that the judicial foundation has serious flaws.
Amid these flaws, the Supreme Court ruled in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[ii] which mandated the three years’ experience bar must be met by those applying for the post of the Civil Judge (Junior). Consequently, the supreme court ruling affirmed and required law graduates to meet certain essential criterion before directly joining the judiciary. The Court also emphasize upon having in-court experience which allows the graduates to foster their maturity, discretion and legal acumen required to be a sound judicial officiary.
Many have praised the move because it tries to set a high standard and align judicial recruitment with legal expertise. It does, however, highlight a fundamental question: Is having an experienced legal background enough to ensure that judges in India are competent and reduce errors in their rulings? This comment acknowledges the 2025 mandate as good start, but it is still a long way towards a shift. Competence of judges comes from various areas like training, knowing their constitution, strong ethics and a solid grasp of legal changes in society, rather than solely from years of work. Even experienced judges sometimes make mistakes, provide flawed reasonings and act apathetically which reflects a major flaw systematically. Hence, the intent behind the 2025 mandate is commendable, but its accomplishments will be limited unless it leads to proper reforms in the structures of judicial education, accountability and performance reviews. It is also necessary to examine the judicial competence described in India’s constitution.
This article reviews the jurisprudential and constitutional value of the 2025 mandate. The article floats through the following heads:
· Exploring the constitutional and theoretical foundations of judicial competence,
· Examining the 2025 judgment with legal precedents and comparative approach,
· Dissecting the challenges rose due to judicial incompetencies and systematic errors,
· Proposing a holistic judicial reform.
Through this analysis, the comment aims to contribute on how to make India’s judiciary fair, responsive, accountable, and also fulfil the constitutional promise of justice.
II. Jurisprudential Foundations of Judicial Competence:
In a constitutional democratic country like India, the competence of judges is not merely reduced to bureaucratic formality. The rule of law is built upon the competence and it is central to the justice entrusted by the Constitution.[iii] A judge’s competence is not judged solely on their legal knowledge and background, but also how clear their interpretations are, how ethically committed they are and how innovative they can be in interpreting the constitution. The Constitution of India envisages the judiciary’s role not only as a mechanism to resolve disputes but also to protect and promote the constitutional values, people’s rights and institutional trust.[iv]
Articles 50[v], 14[vi] and 21[vii] of the constitution upholds the doctrine of judicial independence, while also implicitly affirming the need for competent judges. Article 50 speaks that the judiciary is meant to operate separately from the executive, guaranteeing that its actions are free from political or administrative influence.[viii] The law promises everyone is treated equally and is protected against unjustified state interventions under Article 14.[ix] Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty[x], in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[xi] the apex court has interpreted it broadly. The ruling affirmed that the freedom from detention not only includes physical liberty but also procedural fairness and reasonableness. Unless the judges have the intellectual and moral resources to give substance and humanity to such broad concepts, constitutional safeguards have no reality.
But an important inquiry is how do we specify what constitutes judicial competence in the context of the constitution? Many people think that having lots of legal experience proves someone to be competent. Because of this traditional thinking, it tended to dominate the recruitment of judges for the subordinate judiciary. But, jurisprudential, the judge’s role is to interpret facts against the principles outlined in the constitution, not just mere application of statutes. Therefore, someone with judicial competence must be able to interpret laws, know the constitution, and a disposition for reasoned adjudication.
This view was articulated by the Supreme Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain.[xii] Justice H.R. Khanna emphasized that the constitution of India is not a mere legal text but a living organism which periodically from time to time. A judge needs to take part in this evolution by envisaging at the true aims of justice reflected by the Constitution and not only following prior judgments namely the precedents.
Above technical knowledge, competence is now combined with the value of pluralism, intersectionality, and rights discourse. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Entry case), the Court used the concept of constitutional morality to view and decide deeply-rooted socio-religious inequality.[xiii] This is indicative towards less of formalism by text and a greater involvement of values-oriented judicial process. this marks a transition of text focus formalism to a values-oriented judicial approach. Judges should then be educated on how to traverse these revolutionary practices.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[xiv] the Supreme Court has invalidated the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[xv], the court revealed a new direction to their judgments by drawing on “constitutional morality.” It pointed out that legal thinking should be inclusive, progressive and empathetic. Such jurisprudence demands not just the legal experience but also educating them on social issues, people’s rights and philosophical thinking. Thus, judicial competence is a mixture of legal knowledge, strong ethics and a creative mind for the constitution.
Courts should also be prepared to serve the realities and demands of contemporary litigation in such complicated areas as those of artificial intelligence, digital privacy, climate justice and gender identity, which typically do not fit within the conventional legal school curriculum or normal practice. With the development of society, the development of judicial thinking is also inevitable, which requires higher ongoing training, the readiness to consider external knowledge, and emotional intelligence.
But it is also important to ensure such competence is linked with independence and accountability. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah[xvi], the Supreme Court emphasized on the dangerous effect of incompetent and corrupt officers and it can have the same consequences as political intervention. In such situation, independence cannot shield the corrupt judiciary. Similarly, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India[xvii], the Supreme Court affirmed that the judiciary should be the body for judicial appointments but implicitly demanding responsible and competent judges in the collegium.
Interestingly, even nations such as the United Kingdom have embraced the holistic models. The Judicial Appointments Commission lays emphasis not only on the years of practice but also on good judgment, good communication and cultural awareness. In Canada continuous education is required under the National Judicial Institute. These comparative practices confirm that competency is a life wide attribute and not a recruitment prerequisite.
Experience isn’t the sole criterion for UK’s Judicial Appointments Commission, they also assess candidates’ intellectual ability, diversity sensitivity and decisiveness[xviii]. In Canada, judges have to attend continued education courses[xix], while in America, the American Bar Association emphasize on rigorous reviews by peers.[xx] The competence of a judge includes their jurisprudential thoughts on law, moment of reflection and constant efforts to learn and grow.
In order to adapt to the evolution, the state establish National Judicial Academy to provide comprehensive training for judges.[xxi] The decision maintains the tradition by mandating three years of practice after graduation which closes the distance between theoretical knowledge and real-life courtroom practice. Even though the aim is to enrich the judiciary, it also reminds us to oversee the competency of the judges: not only by experience, but also the ability to safeguard justice in the constitution.
In short, judicial competence is considered an important principle in the Constitution. It forms a core part of what defines the judiciary’s effectiveness, respect and validity. Reducing it to mere experience makes it simplistic as well as risky. Rather than older judges in terms of age, Indian judiciary needs judges who are trained in constitutional values, democracy and social emotions. Since the judiciary deals with challenging political and social issues, its abilities must involve deeper constitutional insight.
III. Errors, Trends, and Institutional Accountability
While the ruling mandates three years of litigation experience is admirable, it also highlights a major crisis: Experience alone isn’t seldom enough to guarantee judicial competence across the collegium. The judiciary must set harder standards for new judges but also speak about the shortcomings seen among current judges. Sadly, this silence can change the judgment into a mere aspirational mandate that disconnects from the deeper institutional rot.
The intent behind the judgment is to develop person’s expertise in law, interpretative maturity and compassion. But judicial blunders by judges with years of experience states that problem is vested with the system, not just with individuals. Sathish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra,[xxii] the Session Court ruled that touching a minor without skin-to-skin contact is not a sexual assault under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act 2012. This error in interpreting the law which was later rectified by the high court, was not due to the judges lacking proper practice, but because of their poor understanding on law.
Following their appointment, judges are reviewed rarely for their performance. There is no formal system to regularly oversee judge’s reasoning, clarity of expression or adherence to the constitution. With law being dynamic, interpretive and always evolving, a lack of reflective practice among judiciary who protect rights can be dangerous. In addition, dissonance in reasoning. If having three years of legal practice is important for becoming a good judge, does this raise doubt about the existing judges who practiced less than the threshold? There is no auditing of past recruitments or assessment of current judges, especially at lower levels, to assure their suitability for deciding Constitutional cases.
When the question arose in the case of Ritish Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh,[xxiii] the court ruled that making an accused supply voice samples did not break Article 20(3) of the Constitution.[xxiv] It was criticized that the decision ignored self-incrimination and did not demonstrate nuanced understanding of the constitution. Lower courts also frequently misapply evidences, passing poorly reasoned orders and issue opaque injunctions which creates uncertainty in the law. These kinds of errors happen regularly and indicate a broader problem. It points out that the judiciary lacks systematic training in constitutional morality, cultural context and interdisciplinary approach.[xxv] Law relies on creative thinking, empathy and courage, not just math formulas. Just because a judge has practiced in courts for three years does not ensure they have these skills. Judicial competences are not only about following procedures; they are also about having clear understanding of law.[xxvi]
Another problem is that the judiciary has unrecognized class and language biases prevailing around the system. Judges are more likely to come from rich, educated and urban backgrounds of the upper castes.[xxvii] The experiences of these judges moved far from those of rural litigants, women, Dalits, tribals or LGBTQIA+ persons. Mere courtroom practice cannot close this gap; it needs to be paired with major changes in public awareness of inclusivity and radical consciousness building.
The judgment attempts to make the judiciary stronger at the start, but couldn’t overlook the importance of post-entry education and development.[xxviii] It is not only appointing better; what really matters is fostering a culture in judiciary that values continuous questioning, accountability and education.
Besides the law, judges must possess clear understanding on constitutional principles, fairness, intersectionality, feminist theories and economic reasoning.[xxix] They need to explain and justify their decisions in court and also in public, academic and community forums. Courts need to change their processes from being simply mechanical to more reflective and transformative.
In short, though the 2025 mandate will improve the judiciary’s intelligence, it should not stop us from looking within the system for other issues.[xxx] What matters in being a true judge is not how long they have practiced, but how strong their grasp of the underlying ethics and goals of constitution is. Unless the judiciary makes structural changes, reflective training, and epistemic humility, even most experienced judges may pass judgments which undermine public trust. The has finally arrived, we must assess both the future judges as well as the present collegium.
IV. Recommendations
4.1.Continuous Learning and Training:
Judicial competence gaps must be tackled by providing all judges with permanent and regular training. Legal education does not stop with being appointed; it must continue all through the career.[xxxi] In addition, these programs must not also solely cover the technical side of law, but also consider changes in the constitution, social justice and new challenges such as online privacy and environmental issues. Taking part in workshops and seminars gives judges a detailed understanding of complicated situations and gives them the ability to make informed judgments.
4.2. Periodic Review:
Judicial competence not only underscores the legal acumen but also the accountability vested with the judges for erroneous decisions. Implementing transparent, fair and systematic review mechanisms to access judges’ performance raise the quality of their verdicts.[xxxii] Reviewing processes should consider how well the reasoning is presented, adherence to constitutional principles, timeliness and how considerate they are of litigants in court. Adding peer review within the judicial systems will support growth in judicial processes, as judges can get constructive criticism from fellow judges. They will, in turn, lower the risk of judicial errors and increases the public trust on courts.
4.3.Revisiting the Judicial Appointment Procedure:
The judiciary must shift its focus on finding people who are intellectual rigor and ethically sound rather than solely depending on experience. While the judgment mandate experience, it failed to underscore the lack of transparency in the current collegium. The reforms must also include more inclusive ways such as appointing legal experts, scholars and members of civil society, benefiting the overall selection process.[xxxiii] Consequently, it would guarantee that appointees are guided by the constitution and intellectual abilities required for justice administration.
4.4.Broadening eligibility criteria:
Introducing a requirement for three years of legal practice could improve skills, but it should not incidentally deny opportunities to qualified candidates. Recruiting from academia, research and public service serves as a chance for the qualified candidates to enter the judiciary thus ultimately resulting in diversifying the group of judges. Having clear competencies that link reality, legal principles and moral values upholds the quality of verdicts. By broadening the eligibility criteria, it may introduce fresh perspectives and expertise into the judiciary.
4.5.Accountability and Transparency:
By scrutinizing the reasoning of the judgments, judicial accountability is not a mere dream. When decisions are widely available and scrutinized by the public, legal experts, and lawyers, it would facilitate better discussions on judicial performance.[xxxiv] Moreover, judiciary must take efforts to bridge the gap between public and courts through outreach activities which can help people understand judicial processes ultimately increasing the trust and confidence among the people.
4.6.Constitutional Sensitivity and Humility:
To conclude my recommendations, I emphasize that the judiciary needs to ensure that constitutional morality and empathy are central in its verdict. If humility and open-mindedness are highlighted, the judiciary will continue to respond to societal changes and support people’s rights and freedoms.[xxxv]
V. Conclusion
Now, the Indian judiciary finds itself at a key moment that needs its members to examine their actions, introduce daring improvements and recommit to their constitutional ideals. Giving future civil judges at least three years of experience in litigation is the Supreme Court’s way of trying to ensure judges have the necessary skills. Even so, getting good at a skill is not only a matter of having worked at it for a long time. Continued errors in judgment, unresolved doctrinal issues and lack of empathy seen in major court decisions point to more difficulties than just entry-level check.
Judicial competence means having strong legal skills, an understanding of the constitution, a good sense of ethics and continuous learning. The legitimacy of judiciary depends on the quality of its rulings and how well it addresses the real needs of people seeking justice. If evaluation, training and transparent appointments are not maintained, the problem of incompetent judges will keep affecting the public’s trust and legal governance.
Well, fixing the judiciary goes further than choosing candidates by qualifications and means re-examining how it operates and how it upholds transparency. This would mean judicial education should be mandatory, rulings must be regularly reviewed by other experts, increased transparency and judges should promote humility and engage with the public.
In order to uphold the judiciary’s integrity, we all must question the Judges’ abilities. By urging for stricter rules and improvements, India can try to have a judiciary that truly reflects the constitutional promises of justice, equity and the rule of law. Only then the judiciary can be the guardian of the constitution in this fast-evolving world.
*******
[i] M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law pt 1 ch 1, 4.
[ii] All India Judges Association and others V/s Union of India and others, [2025] INSC 735.
[iii] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, ‘Judicial Independence as a Fundamental Value of the Rule of Law and of Constitutionalism (2020) https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/1--general-issues--judicial-independence-as-a-fundamental-value-of-the-rule-of-law-and-of-constitutionalism.html accessed 21 May 2025.
[iv] B R Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches, 370 quoting Constituent Assembly Debates, vol VII, 24 November 1948, 582.
[v] Constitution of India, art 50.
[vi] Constitution of India, art 14.
[vii] Constitution of India, art 21.
[viii] Supra 5.
[ix] Supra 6.
[x] Supra 7.
[xi] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) AIR 597 (SC).
[xii] Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs Raj Narain (1975) 2 SCC 159.
[xiii] Indian Young Lawyers Ass’n V. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).
[xiv] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, (2018) INSC 790.
[xv] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 377.
[xvi] State of Bihar v Bal Mukund Sah, AIR 2000 SC 1296.
[xvii] Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India, (1993) Supp 2 SCR 659.
[xviii] Judicial Appointments Commission, Guide to JAC Selection Processes (December 2024), https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Guide-to-JAC-Selection-Processes-Dec-2024.pdf accessed 24 May 2025.
[xix] Canadian Judicial Council, Professional Development, https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/what-we-do/professional-development accessed 24 May 2025.
[xx] America Bar Association, ‘Evaluations FAQ’, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings/evaluations-faq/ accessed 25 May 2025.
[xxi] Department of Justice, ‘National Judicial Academy, https://doj.gov.in/national-judicial-academy-5/ accessed 26 May 2025.
[xxii] Satish Ragde V State of Maharashtra, (2021) MANU/SCOR/ 24055/2021.
[xxiii] Ritesh Sinha V State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 1.
[xxiv] Constitution of India, art 20(3).
[xxv] See Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (HarperCollins 2019).
[xxvi] See Law Commission of India, Report No. 230, Reforms in the Judiciary: Some Suggestions (2009).
[xxvii] See Shyalshri Shankar, Scaling Justice: India’s Supreme Court, Anti-Terror Laws, and Social Rights (Oxford Univ. Press 2009).
[xxviii] Supra 2.
[xxix] Rehan Abeyratne, Surbhi Karwa, The institutional failings of India’s Chief Justice in the age of Modi, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2025, Pages 160-178, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaf014
[xxx] Supra 2
[xxxi] Supra 25
[xxxii] Robinson & Nick, Judicial Architecture and Capacity (October 4, 2014), Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2505523.
[xxxiii] Deva, S. (2017), ‘Business and Human Rights: Time to Move Beyond the Present?’. in Rodriguez-Garavito (ed.) Business and Human Rights: Beyond the End of the Beginning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Globalization and Human Rights), pp 46--61.
[xxxiv] S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (Oxford Univ. Press 2002).
[xxxv] Supra 24