Abstract

India’s justice delivery system today presents a paradox. While its appellate courts command constitutional authority, institutional prestige, and imposing infrastructure, their effectiveness is increasingly questioned due to a growing disconnect from trial-level realities. Drawing upon the analogy of a grand hospital devoid of experienced specialists, this article examines how the marginalisation of trial court experience—among lawyers and judges alike—undermines procedural justice, public trust, and the constitutional promise of fair adjudication under Article 21. It argues that justice cannot be elevated without being grounded, and that experiential competence, not mere hierarchy or academic merit, must guide both legal practice and judicial appointments.

I. Justice Begins Where the Citizen First Enters

The district judiciary is not merely the lowest tier in the judicial hierarchy; it is the first constitutional point of contact between the citizen and the State. It is here that liberty is first curtailed, property is first attached, family relationships are first disrupted, and criminal culpability is first adjudicated. For the ordinary litigant, justice is not defined by appellate precedent but by lived experience at the trial court.

Facts are framed, evidence is recorded, witnesses are examined, and human suffering is first encountered at this level. Law here ceases to be abstract and becomes immediate, coercive, and deeply personal. Any justice system that underestimates this stage misunderstands justice itself.

In this context, the observation of Justice Surya Kant is particularly instructive. He likened district courts to primary health centres, noting that if a litigant is satisfactorily dealt with at this foundational level, escalation to higher courts becomes largely unnecessary. This is not metaphorical excess; it is a reflection of judicial ground reality.

II. The Hospital Analogy and the Structure of Judicial Hierarchy

Consider a large, well-designed hospital with advanced infrastructure, modern equipment, and national recognition—but without experienced super-specialist doctors. The most competent medical practitioners, in contrast, are found in small dispensaries where years of hands-on experience have shaped diagnostic judgment and human sensitivity.

Such a hospital, despite its grandeur, would fail its patients.

This analogy mirrors a growing imbalance in India’s justice delivery system. High Courts and the Supreme Court are constitutionally conceived as corrective and supervisory institutions. Their efficacy presupposes that those who practise before them—and those who adjudicate within them—possess a deep understanding of how errors originate at the trial stage.

When that experiential grounding is absent, institutional elevation risks becoming hollow.

III. The Rise of Appellate Practice Without Trial Exposure

A disturbing contemporary trend is the increasing preference among young lawyers to begin their professional careers directly in High Courts or the Supreme Court, bypassing trial courts altogether. District courts are often perceived as inconvenient, slow, or lacking prestige, rather than as essential sites of legal formation.

This detachment produces serious systemic consequences:

1. Procedural Detachment : Appellate advocacy becomes overly theoretical, insufficiently sensitive to evidentiary realities such as hostile witnesses, defective investigations, coercive confessions, or delays inherent in trial processes.

2. Misappreciation of Facts : Without trial exposure, the ability to distinguish between curable irregularities and fatal procedural violations is significantly weakened.

3. Compounding of Errors : Errors that should have been corrected through informed appellate scrutiny are instead misunderstood or minimised, prolonging injustice rather than resolving it.

As a result, cases that should have been effectively treated at the “primary care” level travel upward unnecessarily, converting appellate courts into emergency trauma centres for systemic failures.

IV. Appellate Courts Are Not Forums of First Justice

Constitutionally, appellate courts are not designed to dispense original justice. Their role is corrective, supervisory, and constitutional. Their legitimacy lies in their ability to meaningfully scrutinise trial court processes and rectify injustice.

This function cannot be effectively performed without deep familiarity with trial-level dynamics. A court may be high in authority, but justice cannot be elevated without depth. Appellate adjudication detached from trial realities risks becoming file-centric rather than justice-centric.

V. The Same Analogy Applies to Judges: Elevation Without Grounding

The hospital analogy applies with equal force to the judiciary itself. Elevation of judicial officers to higher courts, without sufficient grounding in trial-level realities, poses a serious institutional risk.

Judges who have not meaningfully engaged with trial courts may possess doctrinal clarity yet lack experiential sensitivity to:

•    unequal power relations between litigants,

•    socio-economic constraints affecting compliance,

•    imperfect investigations and procedural compulsions,

•    human distress that does not neatly fit into records.

Like doctors who have never worked in emergency wards, such judges may decide cases correctly in law yet inadequately in justice. Errors originating at the trial stage require greater maturity, not lesser, to correct. When appellate benches lack this grounding, mistakes are not cured but constitutionalised.

VI. Understanding the Litigant’s Mind as a Judicial Imperative

Justice is not delivered merely through correct legal reasoning; it is delivered through empathetic comprehension of the litigant’s journey. A judge shaped by trial-level exposure understands why adjournments occur, why defaults are sometimes unavoidable, and why rigid procedural formalism may cause grave injustice.

Without this understanding, adjudication risks degenerating into mechanical legality divorced from lived reality.

II. Entry-Level Judicial Appointments: Merit Beyond Marks

This crisis of grounding begins even earlier—at the stage of judicial appointments. Increasingly, fresh law graduates are appointed as judicial officers based primarily on competitive examination scores. While academic merit is essential, marks alone cannot be the sole criterion for becoming a judge.

Judging is not an extension of academic excellence. A fresh graduate, however brilliant, may lack exposure to courtroom dynamics, client interaction, drafting realities, and the psychological burdens of litigation. High scores demonstrate intellectual ability, not judicial wisdom.

A judge exercises power over liberty, property, dignity, and family life. Such authority demands experiential maturity that no syllabus can impart.

VIII. The Risk of Formal Justice Without Substantive Understanding

Appointments based solely on academic performance risk producing judges who are:

•    procedurally rigid but contextually unaware,

•    legally correct yet practically unjust,

•    efficient on paper but detached from human consequences.

Once again, the hospital analogy holds true: a doctor who excels in examinations but has never independently treated patients cannot be expected to handle emergencies with confidence or empathy.

Trial practice—drafting pleadings, facing adverse orders, interacting with distressed clients, and navigating procedural uncertainty—cultivates judgment that examinations cannot test.

IX. Erosion of Public Trust and Constitutional Implications

For litigants, repeated escalation through judicial tiers signals not justice but systemic failure. Each appeal brings financial strain, emotional exhaustion, and loss of faith. When higher courts too appear detached from ground realities, public trust erodes.

This erosion directly implicates Article 21, which guarantees not just access to courts but fair, reasonable, and humane procedure. A justice system impressive in form yet ineffective in experience risks betraying its constitutional promise.

X. Re-centering Trial Courts in Judicial Reform

Judicial reform discourse often focuses on pendency, infrastructure, and digitisation. Rarely does it address the human capital deficit created by undervaluing trial experience.

Meaningful reform must:

•    restore dignity to district court practice,

•    encourage mandatory trial exposure for lawyers,

•    treat trial experience as foundational for judicial elevation,

•    adopt multidimensional criteria for judicial appointments.

Trial courts are not inferior institutions; they are the foundation of constitutional justice.

XI. Conclusion

A grand hospital without specialists cannot save lives. Likewise, appellate courts without trial-hardened lawyers and judges cannot deliver justice effectively. The strength of the Indian judiciary lies not in the height of its courts, but in the depth of experience of those who serve within them.

Elevation without grounding weakens justice. Experience without hierarchy strengthens it. Re-centering trial courts is therefore not institutional nostalgia—it is a constitutional necessity. Justice must first be healed at the roots before it can be preserved at the heights.