Supreme Court revives rule affecting judicial exam entry

Source: The post Supreme Court revives rule affecting judicial exam entry has been created, based on the article “3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants” published in “The Hindu” on 21 May 2025. Supreme Court revives rule affecting judicial exam entry.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.

Context: The Supreme Court has revived the requirement of three years of legal practice to appear in subordinate judicial services exams. This verdict, delivered on May 20, 2024, has reignited debates around judicial recruitment and talent accessibility, especially since the Court cited no empirical evidence for reinstating the rule.

Historical Background and Legal Shifts

1. Law Commission’s Early Recommendations: The 14th Law Commission (1958) suggested that only those with three to five years of legal practice be allowed to appear for lower judiciary exams. It recommended practical tests, including judgment writing, drafting, and evidence analysis. Yet, most current exams still rely on rote learning.
2. All India Judicial Services (AIJS) Proposal: The Commission proposed a separate system—AIJS—for higher judiciary, with no experience requirement. Graduates aged 21–25 would undergo rigorous training in courts to build necessary skills.
3. Judicial Endorsements and Reversals:?In 1992, the Supreme Court supported the AIJS model. But in 1993, it reversed its stance, ruling that fresh graduates lacked courtroom maturity and practical insight. It made three years’ practice mandatory, considering judicial officers decide on life, liberty, and property from day one.

Challenges in Talent Attraction and Retention

1. The Shetty Commission’s Observations: Formed in 1996, the Commission found the rule ineffective. Many selected candidates were already aged 27–30. In 2002, the SC accepted this finding and abolished the rule, noting that bright graduates lost interest in the judiciary after three years in practice.
2. Changing Realities for Law Graduates: Graduates from National Law Universities now seek lucrative corporate jobs due to high education costs (₹12–₹40 lakh). They rarely consider judicial services.
3. Mismatch in Career Paths: Those focused on judicial services seldom want to practice first, while future litigators rarely aim for judicial roles. The rule discourages both groups.

Barriers to Entry and Inclusion

1. Economic and Social Disadvantages: The rule disproportionately affects SC/ST/OBC and economically weaker candidates who cannot afford career delaysand need to earn early.
2. Gender-Based Challenges: Women, especially those with maternity breaks, may drop out. This could reduce gender gains—like the 38% womenin the district judiciary and their dominance in Bihar’s exam.
3. Age and Delay Factors: With five-six years of legal education and three years of experience, candidates grow older and financially strained—unlike civil services aspirants, who apply earlier.
4. Financial Insecurity for Junior Lawyers: Junior lawyers earn just ₹15,000–₹20,000/month, often less than unskilled workers in Delhi. Many lack professional connections to sustain practice.
5. Irregular Recruitment Cycles: Exams are infrequent, forcing eligible candidates to wait years, further disincentivizing judicial careers.

Proposed Reforms and the Road Ahead

1. Enhanced Training and Mentorship: A two-year structured training can bridge the experience gap. Trainees may serve under District Judges and senior lawyers to gain courtroom exposure.
2. Reforming Examination Patterns: Exams should shift to scenario-based questions and emphasize judgment writing, reducing reliance on memory.
3. Inclusive Talent Recruitment: Excluding fresh graduates risks losing bright minds. A balanced approach that combines early recruitment with strong training is essential to strengthen the judiciary.

Question for practice:

Examine the implications of reinstating the three-year legal practice requirement on judicial recruitment and inclusion in India.