INTRODUCTION
Every law student aspires to become a judicial officer. Aspiration means a strong desire or ambition to achieve something great, but what happens if one’s aspirations get shattered? For children growing up in poverty, the aspiration to become a judge is born out of struggle, and mandating three-year legal practice turns that dream into a mirage.
The judgment regarding mandatory 3-year legal practice before appearing for the judicial service examination was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G.Masih, and K. Vinod Chandran. The main reason behind the introduction of this criterion was that
- Fresh law graduates were not well-versed in the administration of justice
- The matter of life, liberty, and property requires more than just academic knowledge
- Fresh law graduates have no courtroom experience and etiquette
These criteria have both negative and positive impacts, but before these, one must acknowledge the background or history behind them.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The mandatory three-year legal practice for joining the judicial service has a long history.
The Law Commission of India in its 117 Report (1986)[1] had observed that practical training after selection would equip candidates with the skills required for being a judicial officer, instead of a three-year legal practice, as it would open the doors for bright and young graduates, including those from poor and underprivileged backgrounds.
The second AIJA case[2] stated that when judges have to make decisions involving matters of life, liberty, and property, they have to think practically rather than just academic knowledge, and fresh law graduates as judges were not performing well in this serious decision-making.
The Shetty Commission Board 1999[3] suggested that the rule mandating three-year legal practice should be removed because law students, especially those who pursue law from NLUS national law schools, are trained enough and have specialized skills and knowledge.
The Supreme Court agreed with this in the Third AIJA case (2002)[4] and said that fresh law graduates could apply for judge positions only if they undertook training after being selected.
WHY DID THE COURT REINSTATE THE RULE?
Before delivering its 2025 judgment regarding the three-year practice rule, the court asked for feedback from all High Courts and state governments, and the feedback showed that:
- The High Court showed that judicial officers without legal practice are not fully prepared.
- They had no courtroom experience.
- They had a poor understanding of the procedure.
- They had a lack of communication with lawyers and the public.
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court reported that these fresh law graduates as judges lack sensitivity and practical awareness.
HIGH COURT SUGGESTION
- 7 High Courts suggested a three-year mandatory practice.
- 6 High Courts suggested a two-year mandatory practice.
- 1 High Court (Delhi) suggested a one-year mandatory practice.
- 3 High Courts supported the idea but didn’t specify the time.
- Only 4 High Courts were against this rule. [5]
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that: Book learning and training are not enough to become a judge; real-world court experiences are also essential for building confidence, professional behavior, and understanding the administration of justice. Therefore, the court stated that three years of legal practice is necessary, and this period would start:
- From the day when a person is enrolled with the Bar Council
- The experience must be verified by either a senior advocate (ten years + experience) or a judicial officer
- Time spent working as a law clerk can be counted towards three years. [6]
IMPACT OF JUDGMENT ON ASPIRANTS
- Aspirants from a humble background
Some of the judicial aspirants are from poverty-ridden backgrounds they somehow manage to pursue law their main aim while pursuing law is to become a judge and feed their family this rule will kill their dream moreover a judicial magistrate from West Bengal has also mentioned that while practicing many lawyers does not pay their interns a single penny and this will impact aspirants from poor background as it is very hard for them to survive a 3-year legal practice also good senior lawyers only mentor few seniors this rule will only make judiciary weaker not stronger.[7]
- Non-litigating lawyers
Earlier, any person after getting a law degree could appear for judicial examination, but now a three-year legal practice is required, which hurts non-litigating lawyers. Non-litigating lawyers are lawyers who work in companies’ legal departments; they have very little connection with court appearances. These rules are a barrier for them as they force them to shift to litigation. It has made a pathway to the judiciary, but has also limited pathways for those engaging in corporate firms.
- Pendency of judicial vacancy
According to recent data, 5768 positions are vacant in district subordinate courts[8]. Even if one clears a judicial examination then it is not necessary that he/she will pass the interview round as a result of this criteria the participation in judicial service exams would be reduced especially for people affected by poverty and the candidates for judiciary exam would be less and if 20 out of 15 pass the examination then there will be only 5 who would clear the interview around hence the vacancy for position of judge increases it will also impact the existing judges as it will increase their burden and good reduce their efficiency of judicial delivery.
- Women candidates
Every woman wants to become financially independent, and the judiciary is most suitable for them as they can study from home and clear exams within a reasonable time frame. This criterion has made their career uncertain in the judiciary because still in most parts of India, women are still expected to marry early and shoulder the responsibility of the family.
CONCLUSION
This blog covers the historical context, reasons behind the implementation of this rule, along with the impact on aspirants like those who are poverty-ridden and want to feed their family, because even if they get a stipend, it is not necessary that they can fulfill the basic needs of their family. This rule has closed the door for women to become judicial officers due to societal expectations that they have given up their dream of becoming a judge. The court has overlooked a lot of factors while making this decision. How can the court be so assured that this rule will improve the character of fresh law graduates? Moreover, the judgment has not emphasized the areas that need to be focused on by aspirants while pursuing a 3-year practice. Many times, VAKALATNAMA is signed by an advocate, but any other advocate performs and reviews the case on behalf of the advocate who has signed VAKALATNAMA. How could this be assured that the person signing the VAKALATNAMA has assisted in the case or is practicing in court? Rather than imposing this criterion, the court should emphasize boosting judicial training programs it is not guaranteed that those three years of practice will provide the best talent there may be some loopholes even after that because no one is perfect in this world there is a lot of examples of people who have cleared their exam at a very young age and are also qualified judge like former Judge Bharat Chugh. This rule has only hurt the sentiments of aspirants who had been preparing long for the judiciary, and has also increased the burden of judges because many aspirants have given up their dream of becoming judges. There could be a better alternative than this rule.
Author(s) Name: Bhoomi Taneja (Geeta Institute of Law)
References:
[1] Law Commission of India, ‘Supreme Court and High Court’ (Law Commission of India, 2025) < Supreme Court and High Court | Law Commission of India | India > accessed 7 June 2025
[2] All India Judges Association (No 2) v Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288
[3] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility: All India Judges Association v Union of India’ (SCO, 24 January 2024)< Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility – Supreme Court Observer > accessed 8 June 2025
[4] All India Judges Association (No 3) v Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247
[5] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility: All India Judges Association v Union of India’ (SCO, 24 January 2024) < Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility – Supreme Court Observer > accessed 8 June 2025
[6] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility: All India Judges Association v Union of India’ (SCO, 24 January 2024) < Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility – Supreme Court Observer > accessed 8 June 2025.
[7] Supreme Court Observer, ‘Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility: All India Judges Association v Union of India’ (SCO, 24 January 2024) < Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility – Supreme Court Observer > accessed 8 June 2025.
[8] India, Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No 908: Judicial Service Examination (answered 8 February 2023) < AU908.pdf > accessed 8 June 2025.
