The Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that applicants taking the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams nationwide should once again be required to have three years of legal practice at the bar. A three-judge panel reserved the decision on January 28 of this year, and a bench consisting of Justice Augustine George Masih and Chief Justice of India BR Gavai gave it on May 20. Concerns expressed by a number of High Courts on the dearth of practical experience and exposure to courtrooms among recent law graduates joining the judiciary gave rise to the problem.
The Supreme Court's ruling mandated that all State governments change their regulations to require applicants to have practiced law for at least three years prior to taking the test. It further said that an advocate with at least 10 years of standing at the Bar must certify and approve this experience. It further said that the regulation would only be implemented starting with the following appointment cycle and that the judgment will only apply prospectively, having no impact on current hiring. The three-year practice would start on the date of provisional enrollment, not when a candidate passes the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), the Court further said.
What does the decision signify, therefore, for recent law graduates hoping to serve as judges? We start by reviewing the three-year practice requirement's brief history.
History of the debate
There have been legislative changes and divergent opinions throughout India's lengthy history regarding the need of three years of bar experience for judge appointments. The Supreme Court first required it in 1993, but in 2002, the Shetty Commission's recommendations—which supported induction training—led to the requirement's relaxation. But the Supreme Court recently overturned this ruling and reintroduced the three-year practice requirement. A closer view is provided here:
Early Views (Pre-1993):
The efficacy of a three-year bar experience need was questioned in the 116th and 117th Law Commission Reports, which suggested that it was not a guarantee of judicial competence. While acknowledging that the condition was not necessary, the 118th Law Commission Report recommended that it be kept in place.
1993 Supreme Court Mandate:
Citing the requirement for real-world experience, the Supreme Court required a 3-year bar practice for recruitment to civil judges in the All India Judges Association case.
2002 Reversal:
The Shetty Commission's findings served as the basis for the Supreme Court's 2002 decision to abolish the three-year threshold, which it claimed discouraged gifted people from entering the court. Instead of requiring practice, the Court recommended that new hires go through induction training for one or ideally two years.
Recent Reinstatement:
The Supreme Court overturned its 2002 ruling and reintroduced the three-year practice requirement for nominations to civil judges in 2025.
Concerns over the practical expertise of judges without prior bar experience and the need to guarantee judges have exposure to real-world courtroom situations played a role in this judgment.
Impact on Judicial Aspirants
It's time to evaluate the judgment's practical effects on aspiring judges now that it has been rendered. The Supreme Court may have wanted to provide practical legal grounding by requiring a three-year minimum practice before entering the court, but it seems to have ignored the reality faced by thousands of applicants.
1. Obstacles for the Poor and Disenfranchised
The majority of junior attorneys get little or no stipend. Aspiring judges from underdeveloped or rural areas may suddenly encounter insurmountable obstacles. Three years without a paycheck might cause hopefuls to give up on their dreams.
2. Lawyers who do not litigate are excluded
Up until today, anyone with a degree in law could sit for the judicial services test. However, candidates working in law firms and in-house positions will be ineligible due to the new requirement of three years of legal practice.
According to the rule, those who want to become judges may have to quit lucrative positions in corporate law firms to work in litigation, sometimes under senior attorneys who may not pay anything, in order to complete the three-year minimum.
3. Judicial vacancies and pendency
It is well known that there is still a severe judge shortage and a growing backlog of cases in the Indian judiciary. Recent statistics show that there are 5,245 open posts in district and subordinate courts nationwide, and that there are an astounding 4.53 crore pending cases in these courts.
Participation in judicial service examination is anticipated to decrease as a result of the revised qualifying requirements, especially among individuals from underprivileged backgrounds. Fewer applicants could be eligible as a result, and even fewer might make it to the interview stage.
This might worsen the already serious problem of judicial backlog by increasing the number of empty positions in the lower judiciary. A greater workload would therefore fall on the current civil judges, which can have an impact on the general effectiveness and caliber of judicial delivery.
4. The involvement of female candidates
The Supreme Court's decision also raises the worry that it would deter many applicants, particularly women, who might now think twice about requesting judicial services because of the additional obstacles. In recent years, women have been increasingly entering judicial services, largely because the path allowed them the flexibility to study from home and clear the exams within a reasonable timeframe.
Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that in many regions of India, women are still expected to marry young or take care of the family. In this situation, it is particularly challenging for women to gain the patience or support of their families to pursue a profession in the court because to the lengthy and unpredictable career start that is characterized by three years of litigation with little to no pay.
5. Time constraints and age restrictions
The majority of states have a maximum age of 30 to 32 years old. The preparation window is significantly reduced by the three-year practice requirement, especially for those who want to pursue a three-year LLB after graduation. Transitional provisions for those approaching the age restriction are likewise absent from the Court's decision.
Will three years at the Bar really make better judges?
The ruling's proponents contend that previous courtroom experience:
- Develops practical expertise in drafting and reasoning
- Instills professionalism and humility.
However, critics say:
- Three years at the bar does not always translate into superior judging
- Judicial academies already provide new judges with rigorous, year-long training
- Not every active attorney receives significant coaching.
Bharat Chugh, a former judge who entered the court at age 23, pointed that:
"We don't realize that they go through a lot of training before taking on leadership roles. The notion that a 24-year-old surgeon is too young to make a life-threatening decision ignores this truth."
He contends that access to meaningful experience is selective due to the uneven and privilege-driven nature of litigation.
Conclusion
The three-year legal practice requirement was reinstated by the Supreme Court with the admirable and essential purpose of bringing maturity and real-world experience to the court. However, many more applicants may unwittingly face major obstacles as a result of this well-meaning decision, especially those from underrepresented, economically disadvantaged, and non-litigation backgrounds. Although experience to the courtroom may improve judicial acumen, diversity, equality, and inclusiveness shouldn't be sacrificed for required practice.
A more balanced strategy is urgently needed, one that combines real-world experience with institutional support mechanisms like junior advocate stipends, age relaxations for transitional attorneys, and increased training programs at judicial academies. The action runs the danger of reducing the pool of potential judges and exacerbating the already precarious situation of judicial vacancies and pendency in the nation if these concurrent changes are not implemented.