Justice Rajesh Bindal said mandating prior legal practice before joining as munsiff or magistrate helps young judges understand courtroom operations and litigants’ realities. At his farewell by Supreme Court Bar Association, he reflected on evolving recruitment and training.
Mandating prior legal practice before joining the judiciary as a munsiff/magistrate, Supreme Court Justice Rajesh Bindal said, helps young judges understand courtroom operations and the ground realities faced by litigants and lawyers.
Justice Bindal demitted office today. Speaking at his farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), he recalled how judicial recruitment and training practices had evolved earlier.
He noted that, at one stage, many newly recruited law graduates entered the judiciary without courtroom experience, which made it difficult to grasp how proceedings worked.
Justice Bindal said,
“Now three to four years of practice is required before joining as a judicial officer. That requirement was not there at one point. About 50 to 60 percent were fresh graduates, with no idea of court functioning. Directly from law college, they would come and sit on the chair of a judge, without knowing where the shoe pinches or how to solve problems, having not faced such situations in life,”
To bridge this gap, he said newly appointed judicial officers were sometimes sent to courts for short observation periods before formally taking charge as judges.
During these assignments, they attended proceedings as “unknown observers” and watched how lawyers interacted with clients, how court staff worked, and how cases progressed.
Justice Bindal also reflected on how legal research methods have changed over time. He said earlier reliance on physical books and commentaries helped lawyers build wider knowledge, while modern keyword-based research often narrows learning to isolated sections.
He further emphasised the need for institutional discipline within the judiciary, stating that issues within the judicial system should be addressed internally rather than being taken up publicly.
On the role of the Bar, he said the Bar’s primary duty is to help courts reach correct legal conclusions, rather than focusing only on winning cases. He added that establishing an incorrect principle of law can have long-term consequences impacting future litigation and eroding confidence in the system.
During his address, he also shared experiences from his tenure across different High Courts. Recalling his time in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, he spoke about launching the “Insaaf ki Dastak” programme, enabling litigants in remote areas cut off during winters to file petitions through post offices and receive court orders through the same channel.
Comparing his professional journey to a “20-20 match,” Justice Bindal said he spent more than 20 years as an advocate and another 20 years on the Bench.
He also described the demanding nature of judicial work, including instances at the Calcutta High Court where he and his staff worked late into the night to deliver judgments in complex matters, including cases tied to post-poll violence. He noted that the pressures of judicial responsibilities often extend to family members as well, who bear the strain quietly.
Justice Bindal concluded by stressing that cooperation between the Bench and the Bar is crucial to preserving the integrity of the justice delivery system.