"Unless You Know the Tactics and Strategy of a Lawyer, You Can't Be a Successful Judge" — Justice B.V. Nagarathna's Powerful Advice to Judicial Aspirants
EduLaw EditorialLegal Updates"If you want to be a successful judge, practice for more than 3 years and then write the exam. This is my advice." — Justice B.V. Nagarathna's remarks at the 1st Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at CNLU Patna have ignited national discourse on whether courtroom experience is truly indispensable for those who wish to sit in judgment over others. Title: "Unless You Know the Tactics and Strategy of a Lawyer, You Can't Be a Successful Judge" — Justice B.V. Nagarathna's Landmark Observations on Courtroom Practice for Aspiring Judges Case Name: All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1022 of 1989 (I.A. No. 93974 of 2019 and connected matters) Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Hon'ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Justice Augustine George Masih, Hon'ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran Judgment Date: May 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 735; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196 ABSTRACT On April 4, 2026, Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the 1st Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna, on the theme "Constitutionalism Beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters." During the interactive session following her lecture, Justice Nagarathna made a series of emphatic observations on the importance of practical courtroom experience for aspiring judicial officers. Her central declaration — "Unless you know the tactics and strategy of a lawyer, you can't be a successful judge" — coupled with her advice that law graduates should practice for more than three years before writing the judicial service examination, has become the focal point of national debate on judicial recruitment reform. These observations find their legal foundation in the Supreme Court's judgment dated May 20, 2025, in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 735) , which restored the mandatory requirement of three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into the subordinate judiciary. This analysis examines Justice Nagarathna's complete observations, situates them within the governing legal framework, and evaluates their implications for judicial recruitment policy. TABLE OF CONTENTS The Quote in Context — What Justice Nagarathna Actually Said The Legal Foundation — All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025) Why Courtroom Tactics Matter for Judges — The Logic of Experience Maturity and the Risk of Inexperience on the Bench Justice Nagarathna's Response to Gender Equity Concerns The Dissenting Perspective — Review Proceedings in Bhumika Trust Relevant Case Laws and Statutory Provisions Conclusion — Experience as the Price of Justice 1. THE QUOTE IN CONTEXT — WHAT JUSTICE NAGARATHNA ACTUALLY SAID The observations that have captured national attention were not made in the abstract. They emerged during a pointed exchange between Justice Nagarathna and Professor Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of CNLU Patna, who expressed his view that the Supreme Court's judgment mandating three years of Bar practice would discourage women from joining the judicial service. Justice Nagarathna responded with characteristic directness, disagreeing openly and offering her own perspective rooted in nearly four decades of legal practice and judicial service. Her first observation addressed the psychology of aspiring judges who view the practice requirement as a "loss" of time. She stated: "I disagree with you Sir. Next year, I will be completing 40 years in the Bar. I have so many things to learn. If students who come from the bench of the classroom to the bench of the Court hall, they are losing out on experience — please don't think losing three years is a loss of life. I am learning still at 40. If the student is not able to stand before a judge and make an argument, seeking a relief, how will you, as a judge, grant relief? Don't think the three years of life is lost. That is a very negative attitude you have." She then escalated the specificity of her argument, illustrating with a concrete example drawn from daily litigation practice: "Three years is not sufficient, according to me. However, the Supreme Court has said three years. If a case is dismissed for default, what will you do? You will go and give your personal affidavit as a lawyer and seek restoration because a litigant has suffered because you have not appeared. If you have not done that as a lawyer, how will you grant relief as a judge? If you have not been in the Bar, how will you face the advocates in the Court? You will not be successful. You will start crying on the bench, that will add a very negative aspect to your personality. Unless you get into the water, you can't swim." Finally, she delivered the observation that has become the headline of this discourse: "Unless you know the tactics and strategy of a lawyer, you can't be a successful judge. If you want to be a successful judge, practice for more than 3 years and then write the exam. This is my advice