In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinstated a significant rule that could reshape the future of the lower judiciary. A full bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K.V. Chandran ruled that all candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must now complete at least three years of legal practice before appearing for judicial services examinations. This decision came in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025 INSC 735), reversing the 2002 position that allowed fresh law graduates to directly enter the judiciary.
The Court’s rationale lies in a simple but powerful idea: book knowledge alone does not make a good judge. High Courts across India had raised red flags about the inefficiency and immaturity of young judges lacking real-world experience. From procedural confusion to poor people skills and lack of courtroom control, the issues were widespread. According to the judgment, emotional intelligence, legal competence, and decorum cannot be taught only in training centres—they must be developed by observing, practicing, and engaging with actual litigation.
This rule is consistent with the broader structure of judicial appointments in India. Article 233 requires at least seven years of advocacy for district judges. Similarly, ten years of practice is needed for appointments to High Courts (Article 217) and the Supreme Court (Article 124). The three-year rule for entry-level judges now forms a logical extension of this constitutional emphasis on experience before appointment.
However, the decision is not without criticism. Legal scholars and educators argue that the Shetty Commission’s 1999 recommendations, which removed the practice requirement, were intended to encourage bright young minds to join the judiciary early. The fear is that this requirement may discourage fresh graduates—especially from top institutions like NLUs—from taking the judicial route. Many may opt for better-paying private or corporate jobs instead of spending three uncertain years in litigation.
Moreover, the new rule could disproportionately affect students from rural areas, first-generation lawyers, and women, who often face more barriers in sustaining themselves in the early years of practice. For such aspirants, the judicial exam was a direct and secure entry into public service.
To address concerns about the misuse of this rule, the Supreme Court has laid down strict certification procedures. A candidate’s legal experience must be validated by a senior advocate with at least 10 years of standing, and counter-signed by a judicial officer. This step is meant to ensure that the “three years of practice” is genuine, and not just a formality. For those practicing in High Courts or the Supreme Court, a designated officer will endorse their experience.
Furthermore, every selected candidate will be required to undergo one year of judicial training before being posted to a court. This dual-filter system—pre-service experience and structured training—is expected to enhance the capabilities of junior judges from day one.
ALSO READ: UGC NET June 2025 result to be out soon, steps to download
ALSO READ: Clean air is not a luxury—it’s a right every urban worker deserves
There’s no doubt that the new rule demands patience and commitment from judicial aspirants. But it also ensures that those who eventually become judges carry with them more than theoretical understanding—they have practical wisdom. The decision strikes a balance between academic merit and courtroom maturity.
Those who once saw the judicial exam as an immediate goal after graduation will now need to rethink their plans. But in doing so, they may also become more thoughtful, more grounded, and ultimately more effective judicial officers.
This ruling is a bold step towards professionalizing and strengthening the lower judiciary. By valuing lived legal experience over exam marks alone, the Supreme Court has chosen long-term integrity over short-term convenience.
While implementation challenges and access issues must be continuously reviewed, the principle behind this reform is sound: justice delivered by a judge with courtroom exposure is more likely to be just, efficient, and empathetic.
In this light, the three-year practice rule is more than a policy shift—it may indeed be a game changer for India’s judiciary.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash