Introduction
The Supreme Court of India reintroduced a minimum three-year legal practice requirement for admission to the subordinate judiciary in a major ruling in May 2025. This marks a significant change in the requirements for recent law graduates wishing to enter the court system and reverses a relaxation that had existed for two decades. [1] “Neither information obtained from books nor pre-service training can be an appropriate substitute for the first-hand experience of the court-system,” the three-judge bench, which included CJI B.R. Gavai, J. Augustine George Masih, and J. K. Vinod Chandran, ruled. .[2] The Court underlined that judges deal with issues of life, liberty, property, and reputation from the very beginning and that exposure to the courtroom is necessary for competent judgment.
India’s judicial recruiting strategy has been vacillating between prioritizing academic training and appreciating experience for decades. Newly appointed judges should undergo extensive pre-service training, according to the Law Commission’s 117th Report (1986) on “Training of Judicial Officers,” which suggested that “two years rigorous training would outweigh the value, if any, of three years practice at the Bar”. [3] This viewpoint subtly minimized the value of real-world experience. In a similar vein, in order to draw bright young people into the judiciary, the National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission, 1996), which was chaired by former SC Justice K.J. Shetty, suggested eliminating strict experience criteria for recent graduates joining the judicial service.[4] By the early 2000s, numerous High Courts and state legislatures had changed their regulations to allow recent law graduates to apply for entry-level judge positions, frequently after only a few or even six months of enrolment and training. Practice experience was essentially postponed by the Bar Council of India’s regulations, which permitted provisional enrolment for a period of two years (pending the All-India Bar Exam).
Longer experience requirements were argued to discourage meritocratic applicants and encourage a career judicial cadre composed of senior appointees, which is why admission was liberalized. But for a long time, several judges and law enforcement officials were worried that new judges were not adequately prepared for the courtroom due to a lack of practical experience. The judicial examination of the practice criterion was made possible by these conflicting opinions.
Important Precedents of Supreme Court
A number of significant Supreme Court rulings are part of Indian jurisprudence on judge recruitment. A three-judge panel (K. Jagannadha Reddy, S.S. Nijjar, and S. Sarkaria, JJ.) ordered all states to consistently need at least three years of experience for appointment to the lowest rung of the judiciary in the case of All India Judges’ Association & Ors v. Union of India (henceforth AIJA 1993). It “may be pointed out that under Article 233(2) of the Constitution no person is qualified to be appointed as a District Judge unless he has been an advocate… for not less than seven years,” the Court said, noting that many states already had such a condition. The Court warned that bringing in “graduates fresh from the Universities” with no prior legal experience “has not proved to be a successful experiment,” underscoring the seriousness of judicial authority at the lower bench. It was noted that untrained or inexperienced recent graduates lack the “sensitivity to human concerns” and “familiarity with the operation of the court-system” that comes from practicing law. To put it briefly, AIJA 1993 imposed a consistent 3-year rule across the country.
In All India Judges’ Association & Ors v Union of India (“AIJA 2002”), this position was reversed, and the recommendations of the Shetty Commission were adopted by a Constitution Bench.[5] The current Chief Justice Gavai is one of the members of the 2002 Court, which specifically suspended the three-year rule. The bench recognized that the Court had previously ruled that three years’ standing was required, citing the 1993 ruling. However, the Court “accepted this recommendation of the Shetty Commission” and ordered that new law graduates, even those with no prior practice, be eligible for Munsiff-Magistrate positions, citing the fact that “experience has shown that the best talent…is not attracted to the Judicial Service” after three years of practice and that a bright graduate might find judicial service unappealing. However, the Court suggested that these recruits undergo a demanding one to two-year training program. Thus, subject to training modules, the majority of subordinate judiciary tests became available to new graduates starting in 2002.
A policy decision to foster young talent served as the impetus for the 2002 decision. However, it turned out to be contentious. Later, a number of High Courts and judicial officers voiced their concerns, stating that newcomers found it difficult to adjust to the demands of litigants and the realities of the courtroom. Two decades later, the Supreme Court permitted the matter to be reexamined in response to resurgent litigation.
The Recent Judgement
A three-judge panel consisting of CJI Gavai, J. Masih, and J. Chandran rendered the eagerly anticipated ruling in All India Judges’ Association & Ors v Union of India (2025) on May 20, 2025.[6] The Court reinstituted the requirement that applicants for Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions have at least three years of legal experience. All State governments and High Courts were ordered to immediately change their hiring policies. The provision is applied prospectively rather than retroactively; that is, current or previously announced recruitment efforts continue to operate under the previous regulations, but further hiring must adhere to the three-year bar. For example, once the judgment was reserved, the Gujarat High Court’s ongoing process which had done away with the experience criterion was put on hold.
Candidates must submit a certificate from the Principal District Judge or a senior advocate (with at least ten years of experience) in that court, endorsed by the Principal Judge, attesting to their practice period in order to ensure real practice, as required by the Court. An advocate with ten years of standing who has been approved by a designated officer may certify practice in metropolitan and higher courts. Importantly, the three years also included time spent working as a judicial law clerk. This recognizes that working as a clerk for judges offers significant exposure.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, an Amicus Curiae, argued in favor of reintroducing the bar experience standard during the hearing (reserved for January 28, 2025), noting instances of newly appointed judges who were not adequately prepared. He emphasized that without experience, candidates might just sign vakalatnamas without actually participating; the Court acknowledged this, but it also stated that sham practices should be lessened by documentary protections (the certificate).[7]
Sikkim and Chhattisgarh opposed the requirement’s reintroduction, but all states save Rajasthan, Haryana, Nagaland, and Tripura were in favor of it. Judicial Justification. The Court’s conclusion was largely based on High Court affidavits and the lessons learned from two decades of hiring trends. Allowing fresh graduates to enter the judiciary was “not…a successful experience,” according to the majority. Thousands of law graduates entered the legal system without any prior experience for over 20 years (2002–2022), a trend that led to a number of issues. The judges noted that new hires struggled with filings and negotiations and displayed “behavioural and temperament problems” in addition to lacking courtroom etiquette.
Crucially, the Court highlighted the seriousness of the job: an entry-level judge makes decisions on property disputes and fundamental rights (life and liberty) right away. Making such choices requires more than just academic expertise. The Court ruled that “first-hand experience of the operation of the court-system and the administration of justice cannot be adequately substituted by knowledge obtained from books or pre-service training.” It was determined that first-hand experience helping senior attorneys, attending hearings, and comprehending case preparation was essential for developing maturity and sensitivity. A candidate’s “legal experience…is vital to enable the Judge to fulfill his duties properly and with confidence and circumspection,” according to the Court.
Weighing these factors, the Bench agreed with the majority of High Courts that some period of actual practice must be reinstated. Consequently, the Court restored a three-year requirement, calculated from the date of provisional enrolment (not from passing the Bar Exam). The judges reasoned that since a graduate may not be able to clear the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE) immediately, counting from provisional registration (upon joining a Bar Council) fairly acknowledges when the person could begin practice. (The Court also provided safeguards so that candidates don’t simply sit on a provisional registration without genuine practice: certificates must be furnished by presiding judges or senior advocates.) Overall, the Court concluded that real-world legal experience cannot be replaced by institutional training alone. The ruling therefore prioritizes judicial competence and readiness, even at the cost of delaying entry of younger candidates.
Constitutional and Policy Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the fine line that separates egalitarian hiring practices from judicial standards. As long as the decision serves a valid administrative purpose, the ruling upholds the constitutional right of governments to impose substantive conditions for judicial service. The Court’s reasoning is subtly based on the authority granted by Articles 233 and 309: District judges must practice for seven years, as required by Article 233(2), and High Court justices must practice for ten years, as required by Article 217(2). By comparison, the lower judiciary’s three-year term falls fully within the legislative purview. The Court viewed the experience rule as an acceptable reasonable restriction, and there is no fundamental right to instant judicial employment.
Under Article 14 (equal protection), some issues might be brought forward. Recent graduates may argue that they are arbitrarily excluded under the new rule. The State may respond that experience-based classification is based on work needs rather than being arbitrary. In fact, the Court discovered a wealth of evidence showing untrained freshmen were unfit. Given the manifest purpose, Article 14 would likely uphold this rule (the Court made no hint of invalidating it). Similarly, Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession) is not infringed by a qualification for a government job. The right to become a judge is not a fundamental right, but a privilege contingent on conditions laid down by law.
The decision has significant ramifications for policy. The average age of incoming judges will probably increase as a result of the three-year delay in law graduates entering the judicial system. Now, candidates have to use that time for clerking or practice. In one way, the choice puts quality and preparedness ahead of young. It might subtly deter law students who want to be on the bench quickly. Specialized programs designed to train judicial officers must change for legal education. For instance, Maharashtra National Law University (Nagpur)’s five-year “Adjudication and Justice” Honours program, which was created to get students ready for direct entry, is currently behind schedule. A graduate who may have taken judicial exams six months after graduating is now prohibited from doing so for three years, as one dean pointed out.
On the other hand, advocates who have worked for three years are given preference. Young bar lawyers’ retention and morale may increase as a result. Judges may get more experienced, more confident, and more knowledgeable about the legal system with time. Given that many graduates will work for at least a few years under more experienced attorneys, the ruling also subtly pushes law schools and training organizations to include practical training early on.
Conclusion
The three-year practice rule’s restoration by the Supreme Court represents a significant move “from classroom to courtroom.” The bench has indicated that candidates must be seasoned by actual legal practice in order to be considered for judicial office; academic brilliance alone is not enough. According to the Court, judges require firsthand experience of the practical aspects of litigation, which “textbook knowledge” cannot offer. The ruling highlights judicial proficiency even while it delayed admittance for many young attorneys. Going future, if law graduates want to join the bench, they will need to account for three years of advocacy in their career goals. In the end, this ruling is in line with the judiciary’s own conclusion (as expressed by the All-India Judges’ Association) that “experience as a lawyer is… important” for the lowest position in the legal system.
Author(s) Name: Venkatesh Pramod Gaikwad (Manikchand Pahade Law College affiliated to Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University)
References:
[1] LiveLaw News Network, ‘Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice of 3 Years as Advocate to Enter Judicial Service’ (LiveLaw, 20 May 2025) https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-mandates-minimum-practice-as-advocate-to-enter-judicial-service-292727 accessed 21 May 2025.
[2] All India Judges Association and ors v. Union of India & ors. 2025 DGLS(SC) 783
[3] Law Commission of India, One Hundred Seventeenth Report on Training of Judicial Officers (1986)
[4] Law Commission of India, First National Judicial Pay Commission Report (1999) https://doj.gov.in/first-national-judicial-pay-commission/ accessed 21 May 2025.
[5] (2002) 4 SCC 247
[6] (I.A. No.93974/2019)
[7] Debayan Roy, ‘The Art is to Know and to Give What the Judge Wants: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave [Part 1]’ (Bar & Bench, 18 October 2021) https://www.barandbench.com/interviews/litigation-interviews/the-art-is-to-know-and-to-give-what-the-judge-wants-senior-advocate-siddhartha-dave-part-1 accessed 21 May 2025.
