INTRODUCTION: A PERSISTENT DISCONNECT
India’s legal education system has undergone extensive reforms over the past few decades, establishing National Law Universities (NLUs), refining the five-year integrated LLB curriculum, and adapting to global legal trends[1]. Despite these advances, a persistent challenge remains: the disconnect between academic legal education and real-world legal practice[2].
Law graduates often enter the profession theoretically equipped but practically unprepared. This gap is particularly evident for those aspiring to become judges, public prosecutors, or legal advisors in government services[3]. It is in this context that the idea of requiring a mandatory 3-year legal practice before eligibility for certain legal careers has gained momentum. Proponents argue that this reform can bridge the academic-practice gap, promoting professional competence and court preparedness[4].
But is compulsory practice the best way to ensure that graduates are truly prepared for the responsibilities ahead?
WHAT THE THREE-YEAR PRACTICE RULE PROPOSES
Under the proposed reform, law graduates will have to complete at least three years of practical legal practice before they are eligible to apply for judicial positions or certain public service legal roles[5].
This provision is not just about checking a time-based requirement, but is based on the belief that real-world experience builds critical professional and ethical competencies[6].
By becoming familiar with court proceedings, interactions with clients, legal documentation, and procedural complexities, young lawyers will ideally be able to develop a more in-depth understanding of the law than can be gained from an academic environment alone[7]. The rule is envisaged as a bridge between the classroom and the courtroom, encouraging reflective practice and maturity before taking on decision-making roles in the justice system[8].
THE STATE OF PRACTICAL TRAINING IN INDIAN LAW SCHOOLS
INTERNSHIPS: UNEVEN AND UNDERDEVELOPED
Internships are now a core requirement in most Indian law schools, usually spread across semester breaks[9]. However, these internships lack uniformity in structure, oversight, and educational outcomes. Internships in top law firms, senior advocates’ chambers, or non-governmental organisations often provide meaningful exposure; however, students from regional and lower-tier colleges frequently work in under-resourced offices where they have little to no actual involvement.
Moreover, many internships are observational rather than participatory, thereby limiting their learning value to students[10]. Without formal guidelines, assessment standards, or stipends, internships remain an inconsistent and often superficial component of legal education.
MOOT COURTS AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION: VALUABLE BUT INADEQUATE
Moot court competitions, legal aid clinics, and trial simulations are now widely incorporated in legal curricula. These activities help hone advocacy, research, and writing skills. However, these are still highly curated, hypothetical exercises that do not mimic the high-stakes and unpredictable nature of real legal proceedings.
Clinical legal education, though promising, suffers from limited faculty involvement, inadequate client diversity, and a lack of coordination with legal aid officers[11]. Most students engage in legal aid work more to build their resumes, rather than to acquire sustained, client-focused legal skills.
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES VS. TRADITIONAL COLLEGES: A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS
The gap between national law universities and traditional state colleges has grown significantly. National law universities generally have the advantage of better faculty, more funding, and deeper engagement with the legal profession. They often have dedicated internship coordinators, alumni advisors, and a culture of debate.
In contrast, many traditional law colleges, especially in rural or semi-urban areas, operate with outdated curricula, a shortage of faculty, and minimal exposure to real-world legal situations[12]. This uneven playing field exacerbates inequities in legal training and limits the reach of reforms such as the 3-year practice requirement unless infrastructure is also addressed.
THE CASE FOR MANDATORY PRACTICE
PROFESSIONAL MATURITY
Law is as much an art as it is a science. Fresh graduates often lack the professional temperament, emotional intelligence, and strategic thinking required for litigation or judicial roles[13]. Three years of immersion in practice—whether in courts, under a senior advocate, or at a legal aid Centre — can help shape the maturity needed to assume positions of legal authority[14].
ETHICAL FOUNDATIONS
In India, legal ethics is taught more in the abstract than through experience. Working on real cases, handling client trust, observing courtroom activities, and confronting ethical dilemmas firsthand can deepen a lawyer’s understanding of professional conduct. Such experience is particularly important for roles such as public prosecutors or judges[15].
COURTROOM EXPERIENCE
Many aspiring judges, especially those admitted through competitive exams, have never attended a full hearing, drafted a pleading, or interacted with clients[16]. This lack of experience can lead to decisions that are overly theoretical or impractical. Requiring courtroom experience ensures that future judges, prosecutors, and public advocates are exposed to ground realities, not just legal theory.
RISKS OF MAKING PRACTICE COMPULSORY
BRAIN DRAIN TO CORPORATE LAW
An unintended consequence of this rule could be a shift of legal talent from public service to corporate law. High-performing graduates may see this additional requirement as a barrier and instead choose to pursue lucrative careers in law firms or corporate legal departments, where no such mandatory provision exists. This could further weaken the public legal system, which is already struggling with a talent shortage.
INEQUITIES IN ACCESS TO MEANINGFUL WORK
Making practice compulsory without providing equal access to quality legal work could exacerbate existing inequities. Students from privileged urban backgrounds are more likely to obtain apprenticeships under respected lawyers, while students from rural or disadvantaged communities may have difficulty finding meaningful opportunities and may be even more at risk of working without pay or at low pay for three years.
Furthermore, without a structured and monitored framework, there is a risk that the “three years of practice” could become a simple check-out job rather than a transformative experience.
A MIDDLE WAY: REFORM WITH SUPPORT
STRENGTHENING UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING
Rather than imposing new mandates at the postgraduate level, legal education should be redefined in such a way that practice is more seamlessly integrated into the law school experience. This includes:
- Mandatory long-term internships within semesters (not just during breaks)
- Credit-bearing legal aid work supervised by practising lawyers.
- Court observation modules with reflective journaling.
- Workshops by practitioners on client management, negotiation, and ethics.
Standardising and formalising these experiences under Bar Council guidelines could help produce better-prepared graduates across institutions[17].
SUPERVISED PRACTICE OR RESIDENCY MODEL
Drawing inspiration from the medical profession, a residency-style model could provide a structured pathway for new lawyers. Under this model:
- Graduates would work under licensed practitioners or court-appointed mentors.
- They would receive stipends or fellowships funded by the government or legal institutions.
- There would be fixed learning outcomes and performance reviews, making the experience formative rather than symbolic.
Such a model could provide the rigour of real-world experience with the semblance of structured support, making it a more equitable alternative to the unsupervised 3-year mandate.
CONCLUSION: DEVELOPMENT, NOT IMPOSITION
The proposed 3-year mandatory practice requirement arises from a genuine and serious concern – the lack of practical readiness among Indian law graduates. However, reforms in legal education must extend beyond rulemaking; they should also encompass capacity building, curriculum redesign, and equitable implementation.
Instead of applying a one-size-fits-all rule, stakeholders should collaborate to create structured, inclusive, and meaningful opportunities for practical training. National Law Universities, State Colleges, Bar Council of India, and the judiciary should work together to ensure that experience becomes an integral part of education, not a hindrance after education.
Ultimately, India’s legal profession will be strengthened not by how long someone practises before entering a role, but by how well that practice is structured, trained, and integrated into the journey of becoming a lawyer.
Author(s) Name: Khushi Baraiya (Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Sagar
References:
[1] Bar Council of India, Rules on Standards of Legal Education (2008)
[2] National Knowledge Commission, Report on Legal Education (Government of India 2007)
[3] Law Commission of India, 117th Report on Training of Judicial Officers (1986)
[4] Ministry of Law and Justice, Discussion Paper on Legal Education and Judicial Reforms (2021)
[5] All India Judges’ Association v Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247
[6] Bar Council of India, All India Bar Examination (AIBE) Guidelines (2010)
[7] Ministry of Law and Justice, Discussion Paper on Legal Education and Judicial Reforms (2021)
[8] Law Commission of India, 117th Report on Training of Judicial Officers (1986)
[9]Bar Council of India, Rules on Standards of Legal Education (2008) Sch III
[10] Jayanth K Krishnan, ‘Globally Elite Law Schools and the Globalisation of Legal Education: The Case of India’ (2011) 20 Legal Education Review 1
[11]N R Madhava Menon, ‘Clinical Legal Education: Concept and Concerns’ (1998) 41 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 14
[12] Law Commission of India, 266th Report on The Need for Reform in Legal Education (2017)
[13] Law Commission of India, 117th Report on Training of Judicial Officers (1986)
[14] Ministry of Law and Justice, Discussion Paper on Legal Education and Judicial Reforms (2021).
[15] Law Commission of India, 195th Report on the Legal Education and Professional Training and Proposal for Amendments to the Advocates Act, 1961 (2006).
[16] Law Commission of India, 117th Report on Training of Judicial Officers (1986).
[17] N R Madhava Menon, ‘Clinical Legal Education: Concept and Concerns’ (1998) 41 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 147.
