{"id":338909,"date":"2025-05-30T20:22:28","date_gmt":"2025-05-30T14:52:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=338909"},"modified":"2025-06-01T13:08:18","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T07:38:18","slug":"supreme-court-restores-three-years-practice-requirement-for-judges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/supreme-court-restores-three-years-practice-requirement-for-judges\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source<\/strong>: The post Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges has been created, based on the article \u201cIs the three-year practice mandate for judicial service welcome?<\/strong>\u201d published in \u201cThe Hindu<\/strong>\u201d on 30 May 2025. Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Supreme<\/p>\n

UPSC Syllabus Topic:<\/strong> GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.<\/p>\n

Context<\/strong>: On May 20, the Supreme Court reinstated a rule requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

For detailed information on Supreme Court revives rule affecting judicial exam entry<\/strong> read this article here <\/a><\/p>\n

Arguments Supporting the Practice Requirement<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Empirical Backing from High Courts and Bar Council: <\/strong>Out of 25 High Courts, 23 reported unsatisfactory outcomes<\/strong> from directly recruiting fresh graduates. The Bar Council of India<\/strong> stated that judges without Bar experience were often incapable of handling cases effectively.<\/li>\n
  2. Need for Real-World Exposure: <\/strong>Judicial roles demand skills that are hard to teach in classrooms. Practical experience helps develop legal reasoning, procedural understanding<\/strong>, and emotional maturity<\/strong>, which improve with age and exposure to real cases.<\/li>\n
  3. Limitations of Judicial Training Academies: <\/strong>Training institutions often lack adequate resources. They are unable to provide individual feedback or mentorship<\/strong>needed for effective skill-building. Real-world experience is considered more valuable than theoretical learning.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Criticisms of the Practice Requirement<\/strong><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Minimal Value from Short-Term Experience: <\/strong>The initial years of legal practice often involve minor tasks like seeking adjournments<\/strong>, not substantial case handling. This limited exposure may not translate into better judicial decision-making.<\/li>\n
    2. Lack of Clear Assessment and Verification: <\/strong>There are no specific guidelines on what constitutes valid practice. Without clear parameters, the rule may become a symbolic formality<\/strong>, especially affecting those without access to strong mentorship. Suggestions like a digital diary<\/strong> with verifiable records were proposed for better monitoring.<\/li>\n
    3. Exclusion of Marginalised and Poorer Candidates: <\/strong>Earlier, fresh graduates could directly enter the judiciary. The new rule imposes financial and time burdens<\/strong>, discouraging candidates from non-elite law schools or weaker economic backgrounds. Many lack support systems in early legal practice.<\/li>\n
    4. Reduced Appeal and Shrinking Talent Pool: <\/strong>Delaying judicial entry to one\u2019s late 20s, while offering the same pay and conditions, lowers the career<\/strong>\u2019<\/strong>s attractiveness<\/strong>. Some may prefer direct entry into senior roles.<\/li>\n
    5. Gender-Based Disadvantages: <\/strong>Women often face family and social barriers<\/strong> in litigation. The added requirement may deter them, though reservations in most states<\/strong> help maintain their presence in the judiciary. Lack of women in litigation affects representation in the judiciary.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Concerns About Procedural and Constitutional Validity<\/strong><\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. Absence of Public Consultation: <\/strong>The decision lacked stakeholder engagement<\/strong>. Broader consultation could have addressed practical challenges and improved implementation.<\/li>\n
      2. Breach of Constitutional Role Division: <\/strong>Under Article 234<\/strong>, eligibility norms are set by state governments and High Courts. The Supreme Court\u2019s action raises concerns of overreach<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
      3. Need for Broader Institutional Reform: <\/strong>Eligibility alone cannot solve deeper issues. Improving recruitment, training<\/strong>, and service conditions<\/strong> is essential for judicial reform.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Question for practice:<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Evaluate<\/strong> the impact of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to mandate three years of legal practice on the inclusivity, effectiveness, and structure of the judicial recruitment system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Source: The post Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges has been created, based on the article \u201cIs the three-year practice mandate for judicial service welcome?\u201d published in \u201cThe Hindu\u201d on 30 May 2025. Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges. UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Structure, organisation and functioning of the… Continue reading Supreme Court restores three years practice requirement for judges<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10320,"featured_media":339083,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1230],"tags":[212,225,10498],"class_list":["post-338909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-9-pm-daily-articles","tag-gs-paper-2","tag-polity","tag-the-hindu","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Supreme-Court-restores-three-years-practice-requirement-for-judges.png?fit=1280%2C850&ssl=1","views":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338909","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10320"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=338909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338909\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/339083"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=338909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=338909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=338909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}