The Supreme Court of India has ruled that candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations must once again fulfill a minimum requirement of three years of legal practice at the Bar.
A three-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, reserved the judgment on January 28 and delivered it on May 20. The decision came in response to concerns raised by multiple High Courts regarding the lack of courtroom exposure among fresh law graduates entering judicial service.
The Court directed all State governments to amend their rules to enforce the three-year practice mandate. This experience must be certified by an advocate with at least ten years of standing. Additionally, the Court clarified that time spent as a law clerk to judges would count toward the requirement. Newly appointed judicial officers must also undergo one year of training before presiding over cases.
The ruling will apply prospectively, meaning it will not affect ongoing recruitment processes and will only be enforced from the next appointment cycle. The three-year period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment, not from the clearance of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
What Does This Mean for Judicial Aspirants?
To understand the implications, it is essential to examine the history of this requirement.
Background of the Debate
The question of whether judicial candidates should have prior legal experience has been a long-standing issue. The 116th Law Commission Report recommended abolishing the three-year practice rule, arguing that such a short duration does not sufficiently prepare lawyers for judgeship. The 117th Law Commission Report echoed this view, stating that mere Bar experience does not guarantee judicial competence.
However, the 118th Law Commission Report suggested retaining the requirement despite acknowledging it was not strictly necessary.
The Supreme Court addressed this issue in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993), ruling that only lawyers with at least three years of practice should be appointed to State judiciaries. However, in 2002, the Court reversed this stance, accepting the Shetty Commission’s recommendation to remove the mandate, citing concerns that it discouraged talented graduates from joining the judiciary.
Now, the Court has reverted to its earlier position, emphasizing the need for practical experience before judicial appointment.
Impact on Judicial Aspirants
While the Court’s intention is to ensure well-prepared judges, the ruling may have unintended consequences.
1.Challenges for Economically Disadvantaged Aspirants
The decision could disproportionately affect candidates from rural or underprivileged backgrounds. Many junior lawyers struggle financially, as seniors often do not provide stipends. A judicial magistrate from West Bengal told *Bar & Bench* that the ruling might force many aspirants to abandon their judicial ambitions due to financial constraints, ultimately weakening the judiciary.
2. Exclusion of Non-Litigating Lawyers
Previously, any law graduate could take the judicial services exam. Now, those working in corporate law firms or in-house legal roles must switch to litigation to meet the three-year requirement—often at the cost of stable income.
3. Judicial Vacancies and Case Backlog
With over 5,000 vacancies and 4.53 crore pending cases in subordinate courts, stricter eligibility may further reduce the number of qualified candidates, worsening judicial delays.
4. Effect on Women Candidates
Women, who have been increasingly joining the judiciary, may face additional hurdles. Societal expectations and financial instability during three years of litigation could deter many from pursuing this career.
5. Age Restrictions
Many States set an upper age limit of 30–32 years for judicial aspirants. The three-year mandate reduces preparation time, particularly for those who pursue law after graduation.
Will Three Years of Practice Ensure Better Judges?
Proponents argue that mandatory Bar experience fosters professionalism and respect toward the legal fraternity. However, critics question whether three years guarantee judicial competence or moral character.
Former judge Bharat Chugh, who joined the Delhi Judicial Services at 23, emphasized that young judges undergo rigorous training before assuming office. He suggested improving judicial academies rather than imposing arbitrary experience requirements.
The ruling, while well-intentioned, risks excluding diverse voices from the judiciary without a clear mechanism to ensure better judicial quality.
Author Bio
