Reflecting on the Supreme Court's Mandate of Three Years' Legal Practice for Judicial Services Entry

The Supreme Court's recent decision to require a minimum of three years of legal practice before eligibility for judicial service examinations marks a significant shift in India's judicial recruitment policy . This move aims to ensure that prospective judges possess practical courtroom experience, enhancing their ability to adjudicate effectively from the outset².

Proponents argue that this requirement will lead to a more competent and prepared judiciary, as judges with real-world legal experience are better equipped to understand the nuances of legal proceedings, procedural complexities, and litigants' concerns. The Court emphasized that practical exposure is essential for judicial officers to handle the evolving nature of legal disputes, especially in areas like cyber law, commercial litigation, and human rights³.

However, this well-intentioned reform may inadvertently create barriers for certain groups. First-generation lawyers, who often lack familial legal networks or mentorship, may find it challenging to secure meaningful practice opportunities, especially in a profession where initial years can be financially unstable . Similarly, female aspirants might face societal pressures, such as early marriage expectations and family obligations, which could deter them from pursuing extended periods of legal practice before attempting judicial examinations. These hurdles could undermine the inclusivity and accessibility of the judiciary.

Moreover, the decision could potentially reduce the diversity within the judiciary. Data indicates that women constitute approximately 35% of judges in district courts, a figure that might decline if the new requirement discourages female participation. Diversity in the judiciary is crucial not only for representation but also for fostering trust and sensitivity in the justice delivery system.

While the objective of enhancing judicial quality is commendable, it is essential to consider alternative pathways that balance experience with inclusivity. Structured judicial training programs, mentorship schemes, or supervised internships could provide comparable practical exposure without imposing a rigid practice duration, thereby accommodating diverse aspirants and maintaining the judiciary's integrity and social relevance⁵.

SC bars fresh law graduates from judicial exams, mandates 3 years' legal practice, The Times of India, May 20, 2025.

3 years' advocate practice must to be eligible for judicial service, The Times of India, May 21, 2025.

SubscriberWrites: Flaws of the 3-year practice rule for judiciary exams, The Print.

Mandatory practice of three years for appearing for judicial services exam at the civil judge entry level; is it valid?, The Leaflet.

All India Judges' Association And Others v. Union Of India, Supreme Court of India, August 24, 1993