Introduction
The Supreme Court’s May 2024 decision to reinstate a mandatory three-year practice at the Bar for entry into judicial service has reignited debate over the balance between judicial competence and accessibility. While framed as a quality-control mechanism to ensure better-prepared judges, the decision raises critical ethical questions about participatory policymaking, judicial independence, and inclusivity.
Implications
- Democratic Deficit and Participatory Governance: The absence of broad-based stakeholder consultation — especially from legal educators, aspirants, High Courts, and marginalized communities — marks a deviation from democratic ethos. Article 234 of the Constitution entrusts State governments and High Courts, in consultation with Public Service Commissions, to determine eligibility for subordinate judiciary. The Supreme Court’s top-down intervention, devoid of public input, amounts to courtroom policymaking that bypasses constitutional procedure and undermines cooperative federalism.
- Access to Justice and Inclusion: The mandate risks disproportionately affecting aspirants from economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized backgrounds. Fresh graduates, particularly from non-metropolitan areas and under-resourced law schools, often cannot sustain unpaid or low-paying litigation practice. For women, structural and familial barriers make litigation even less viable, potentially curtailing their representation in the judiciary. This regressive gatekeeping contradicts constitutional commitments to equality and social justice under Articles 14 and 16.
- Judicial Independence and Institutional Integrity: Judicial independence is not merely about freedom from external pressures but also institutional diversity and legitimacy. Imposing rigid entry barriers without addressing systemic deficiencies — such as poor working conditions, inadequate training, and lack of mentorship — risks narrowing the recruitment pool to an elite few. Moreover, by prioritizing nominal experience over demonstrable aptitude, the measure could entrench mediocrity rather than elevate judicial standards.
- Lack of Evidentiary Basis and Policy Coherence: While anecdotal inputs from High Courts and the Bar Council suggest that fresh recruits lack courtroom maturity, the ruling fails to offer empirical data correlating years of practice with judicial performance. In contrast, a study-based, evidence-driven policy could have examined alternative pathways, such as strengthening judicial academies, peer mentorship, and continuous legal education. As Bharat Chugh notes, lived experiences and maturity are indeed vital — but merely logging three years of adjournment-seeking or drafting work may not equate to meaningful preparedness.
Broader Concerns and Alternatives
- The India Justice Report (2022) emphasized that many States already struggle with judicial vacancies, low recruitment rates, and gender disparity. Adding more filters may exacerbate these issues without addressing root causes.
- A more inclusive solution would involve hybrid models: mandatory apprenticeships, structured internships under senior judges, and integration of clinical legal education during law school.
- Additionally, the Department of Justice and Law Commission should be involved in deliberating such structural reforms, ensuring alignment with broader goals like the National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation and E-Courts Project.
Conclusion
The three-year practice mandate, while well-intentioned, reflects a narrow, technocratic view of judicial reform. Without participatory consultation, clear metrics, and socio-economic safeguards, it risks undermining the very principles it seeks to uphold — judicial quality, independence, and access to justice. For a robust and representative judiciary, reforms must be inclusive, data-driven, and rooted in constitutional propriety.
