INTRODUCTION
India’s bar is a critical pillar in maintaining our republic. It safeguards justice being administered, upholds the Constitution, and guards the unalienable rights of all citizens. Judges, as the first point of interpretation for laws, are not just expected to know the proposition; they need real-life legal experience too.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (2024) [1]made it obligatory for anyone aspiring to become a civil judge to have at least three years of experience rehearsing law before they can take the judicial service examinations. This marks a significant shift from the previous system, where indeed fresh law graduates could apply directly without setting foot in a courtroom.
Naturally, the decision has sparked a lot of debate in legal circles. Sympathisers believe it’s a step in the right direction, as it’ll help make a more competent and mature bar. On the other hand, critics worry it could discourage youthful and talented graduates from pursuing a career on the bench. In this composition, we’ll explore the background of this ruling, the logic behind it, what it means for the legal community and the different views it has generated.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The provision of prior legal experience before assuming judicial positions is not new. This provision has been made in various jurisdictions and has been supported by earlier judicial decisions. But in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002)[2], the Supreme Court permitted states to appoint freshly graduated law professionals to the judicial services. The basis of the decision was that practical experience could be obtained through formal training and that the exclusion of dynamic young persons from judicial positions on the grounds of no courtroom experience was not warranted.
Various judicial authorities have expressed concerns over the years regarding the capability of inexperienced judges with poor exposure to judicial proceedings. The issue was raised once again in the recent judicial case of Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, where the Supreme Court conducted a thorough examination of the subject and rendered a verdict that reinstated the three-year practice requirement.
KEY ASPECTS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court ruling emphasised the following:
- Need for Practical Exposure: Law practice exposes the individual to court procedures, advocacy, handling of cases, and nuances of judicial behaviour. This is what is required in an individual who wants to deliver justice.
- Improved Judicial Decision-Making: Judges who have worked with clients, observed seasoned advocates in action, and worked in varied judicial environments are better able to understand the real-world implications of their decisions.
- Strengthening the Judicial System: The purpose of this decision is to increase the overall strength and efficacy of the mechanism for the delivery of justice by giving judicial officers a minimum amount of experience.
- Constitutional Validity: The Court held that the stipulation is not violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality)[3] or Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession)[4] of the Indian Constitution since it involves a reasonable requirement for the occupancy of a public office.
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
The Court had cited Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution[5], which requires a person not in government service to have “been for not less than seven years an advocate” to be eligible for being appointed as a district judge. Although this is a provision for higher judicial service, the Court cited it to explain the rationale behind the law, again reiterating that experience is a great asset for a judge.
This decision is in accordance with traditional international practice. Most countries require legal professionals to acquire multiple years of experience before serving as judges. For instance:
- In the UK, one must usually be a barrister or solicitor with five years of experience to be made a judge.[6]
- In America, most judges are seasoned practising lawyers who have been around the block a few times.[7]
By adhering to these international norms, the Indian judiciary makes progress in enhancing its institutional benchmarks.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE JUDGMENT
- Impacts on Law Graduates
Current law graduates are now forced to rethink their professional choices. Those who are set on becoming judges must first practice law for three years. While it may sound disappointing at first, it also offers a chance to gain on-the-job experience in the practice of law.
- Quality of Judges Likely to Improve
The main objective of the ruling is to make judicial officers competent enough to handle the complexities of the law. Judges with prior experience in the court are most likely to be endowed with critical thinking, procedural knowledge, and the ability to comprehend litigants.
- Shifts in Judicial Evaluation Techniques
State Public Service Commissions and High Courts will have to change their recruitment policy and examination notices to incorporate this eligibility condition. This change may result in a decrease in the number of applicants while increasing their quality.
- Law Schools May Reconsider Curriculum
Law schools can rearrange their curriculum to focus more on litigation skills, clinical legal education, and internships. This will get the students ready for practice and then ready for judicial positions.
REPROACHES REGARDING THE DETERMINATION
While it has several advantages, the ruling has been criticised.
- An Obstacle for Future Jurists
Other legal observers posit that the rule poses another obstacle for students from humble beginnings. Not every graduate can wait for three years before they can be certain to earn a steady income, particularly considering the first obstacle in the practice of law.
- Absence of Standardised Procedures
The ruling does not clarify whether the practice of three years will be based on uniform criteria in all states. How will authorities measure the quality and type of practice? This ambiguity can result in potential abuse or unequal application.
- Deterring Emerging Talent
Critics have pointed out that talented law graduates can well leave the profession of judges entirely due to the lag and uncertainty associated with legal practice. India is already short of judges, and this rule could widen the gap.
- Overburdened Legal Professionals
Young campaigners are usually overworked and underpaid. It may be unrealistic to expect most of them to remain in a difficult situation for three years before they can even attempt judicial exams.
AN EQUITABLE PERSPECTIVE
The option must be seen not as a limitation but as an asset. Practical experience familiarises a future judge with the socio-legal context of the litigants. Legal questions of day-to-day life cannot always be imparted in classrooms. In requiring three years of practice, the Court is trying to produce a better-qualified, wiser, and emotionally perceptive judiciary.
However, effective implementation of this requires some accompanying reforms.
- Better Entry-Level Legal Careers: Junior lawyers should be provided with adequate mentorship, allowances, and exposure to various types of cases.
- Standardised Guidelines: ‘Bar Councils and Public Service Commissions need to be able to lay down clear guidelines to measure legal practice, such as minimum number of court appearances, quality of work, or a case logbook’.
- Scholarships and Assistance: Graduates planning to pursue practice but do not have the means to take care of themselves for three years should be provided with assistance.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court judgement making it obligatory for candidates for civil judges to have a minimum of three years’ practical experience in legal practice is a significant and much-needed change in the Indian judicial hiring process. This judgement shows a great faith that only practical exposure is as important as academic success. Although this could be difficult for new graduates and may necessitate systemic changes, the judgment has the potential to significantly improve the capability and credibility of the lower judiciary.
The Indian judicial system is primarily in the dock for its sluggish and ineffective functioning. One of the solutions to curtail this issue is to make the bench stronger at its grassroots level. Judges who have seen the operation of a trial court, dealt with real clients, and experienced the intricacies of lawsuits are most likely to be sympathetic, pragmatic, and efficient in dispensing justice. If this project is given a genuine and impartial push, it can be a landmark in the field of judicial reform.
Author(s) Name: Sk Anis Masud (Adamas University)
References:
[1] Bhagwan Dass v State of Haryana (2024) Civil Appeal No 2397 of 2024 (SC).
[2] All India Judges’ Association v Union of India, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 (SC).
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 14.
[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 14.
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 233(2).
[6] Judicial Appointments Commission, Eligibility Requirements for Judicial Office (2023) https://judicialappointments.gov.uk accessed 28 May 2025.
[7] American Bar Association, Pathways to the Bench (2022) https://www.americanbar.org accessed 28 May 2025.
