Source: The post Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges has been created, based on the article “Is the three-year practice mandate for judicial service welcome?” published in “The Hindu” on 30 May 2025. Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context: On May 20, the Supreme Court reinstated a rule requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice to apply for entry-level judicial services. This reverses its 2002 ruling and has sparked debate on judicial competence, systemic reform, inclusivity, and constitutional propriety.
For detailed information on Supreme Court revives rule affecting judicial exam entry read this article here
Arguments Supporting the Practice Requirement
- Empirical Backing from High Courts and Bar Council: Out of 25 High Courts, 23 reported unsatisfactory outcomes from directly recruiting fresh graduates. The Bar Council of India stated that judges without Bar experience were often incapable of handling cases effectively.
- Need for Real-World Exposure: Judicial roles demand skills that are hard to teach in classrooms. Practical experience helps develop legal reasoning, procedural understanding, and emotional maturity, which improve with age and exposure to real cases.
- Limitations of Judicial Training Academies: Training institutions often lack adequate resources. They are unable to provide individual feedback or mentorshipneeded for effective skill-building. Real-world experience is considered more valuable than theoretical learning.
Criticisms of the Practice Requirement
- Minimal Value from Short-Term Experience: The initial years of legal practice often involve minor tasks like seeking adjournments, not substantial case handling. This limited exposure may not translate into better judicial decision-making.
- Lack of Clear Assessment and Verification: There are no specific guidelines on what constitutes valid practice. Without clear parameters, the rule may become a symbolic formality, especially affecting those without access to strong mentorship. Suggestions like a digital diary with verifiable records were proposed for better monitoring.
- Exclusion of Marginalised and Poorer Candidates: Earlier, fresh graduates could directly enter the judiciary. The new rule imposes financial and time burdens, discouraging candidates from non-elite law schools or weaker economic backgrounds. Many lack support systems in early legal practice.
- Reduced Appeal and Shrinking Talent Pool: Delaying judicial entry to one’s late 20s, while offering the same pay and conditions, lowers the career’s attractiveness. Some may prefer direct entry into senior roles.
- Gender-Based Disadvantages: Women often face family and social barriers in litigation. The added requirement may deter them, though reservations in most states help maintain their presence in the judiciary. Lack of women in litigation affects representation in the judiciary.
Concerns About Procedural and Constitutional Validity
- Absence of Public Consultation: The decision lacked stakeholder engagement. Broader consultation could have addressed practical challenges and improved implementation.
- Breach of Constitutional Role Division: Under Article 234, eligibility norms are set by state governments and High Courts. The Supreme Court’s action raises concerns of overreach.
- Need for Broader Institutional Reform: Eligibility alone cannot solve deeper issues. Improving recruitment, training, and service conditions is essential for judicial reform.
Question for practice:
Evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to mandate three years of legal practice on the inclusivity, effectiveness, and structure of the judicial recruitment system.
