Supreme Court reinstates 3-year Bar experience for civil judges: What it means for judiciary aspirants

The Supreme Court of India recently directed that the minimum requirement of three years' legal practice at the Bar should be reinstated for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations across the country.

The judgment was reserved by a three-judge Bench on January 28 this year and was delivered on May 20 by a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The issue arose in light of concerns raised by several High Courts about the lack of courtroom exposure and practical experience among fresh law graduates entering the judiciary.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court directed all State governments to amend their respective rules to ensure that candidates must have at least three years of legal practice before appearing for the exam. This experience must be certified and endorsed by an advocate with at least ten years of standing at the Bar, it added.

The Court clarified that time spent as a law clerk to judges would also count toward the required experience. Additionally, it mandated that newly appointed judicial officers must undergo one year of training before presiding over court proceedings.

It further mentioned that judgment will apply prospectively and not affect ongoing recruitment and that the rule will be enforced only from the next appointment cycle. The Court also stated that the three-year practice will begin from the date of provisional enrolment, not from when a candidate clears the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).

So what does the ruling mean for law graduates who aspire to become judges? First, we take a look at the brief history of the three-year practice requirement.

The debate over whether candidates should have prior legal experience to qualify as judges at the subordinate level has been a longstanding one, addressed periodically over the years.

The 116th Law Commission Report recommended abolishing the mandatory three-year practice requirement, reasoning that such a brief period of practice was insufficient to provide the kind of training necessary to become an effective judge. Echoing this view, the 117th Law Commission Report argued that it was entirely unsustainable to presume that mere experience at the Bar could adequately prepare one for the judiciary.

However, a shift in perspective emerged as the 118th Law Commission Report, despite acknowledging that the requirement wasn’t essential, suggested that the three-year practice mandate could still be continued.

This contentious issue was brought before the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India (1993) in which the Court ruled that State judiciaries should appoint only those lawyers who had at least three years of legal practice.

However, the same was done away with in 2002 by the Supreme Court, when it endorsed the Shetty Commission's recommendation to eliminate the practice requirement, observing that it deters top talent from joining the judiciary. The Court in this case noted that after three years of legal practice, many law graduates might no longer view a career in judicial service as sufficiently appealing.

Now, the Court has taken a different view, observing that appointing fresh law graduates as judges is a challenge due to their lack of practical experience.

Now that the judgment is out, it’s time to assess the real-world impact it will have on current judicial aspirants. While the Supreme Court's intent behind mandating a three-year minimum practice before entering the judiciary may stem from a desire to ensure practical legal grounding, it appears to have overlooked the lived realities of thousands of aspirants.

Struggles of aspirants from humble backgrounds

One of the major setbacks of this ruling is its potential to discourage aspirants from rural backgrounds or underprivileged sections of society from choosing the judiciary as a career path.

With most senior lawyers not offering even a basic stipend to juniors, surviving on a minimal or no income becomes extremely challenging. The reality is that this mandate may end up excluding precisely those voices the judiciary needs the most - individuals with lived experiences of India’s grassroots legal challenges.

Speaking to Bar & Bench, a judicial magistrate from West Bengal said that the judgment would disproportionately impact aspirants from economically weaker sections.

"They get no incentive for practicing and have to make ends meet to work under a proper senior who in turn only takes a selected few under their wing. What good will three years practice do? They will learn nothing and ultimately leave preparation and opt for some other jobs to make ends meet. The practical effect will be a worsened condition of the judiciary in the long run," he added.

Exclusion of non-litigating lawyers

Until now, any law graduate with a degree could appear for the judicial services examination. However, with the new mandate requiring three years of legal practice, candidates working in law firms (not in litigation department) and in-house roles will find themselves excluded.

The ruling suggests that aspirants aiming for a judicial career may have to leave well-paying jobs in corporate law firms to join litigation practice, often under seniors who may not pay any salary, just to fulfill the three-year requirement.

Judicial vacancies and pendency

It is a known fact that the Indian judiciary continues to struggle with significant shortage of judges and mounting case backlog. According to recent data, there are 5,245 vacant positions in district and subordinate courts across the country, while the number of pending cases in these courts has reached a staggering 4.53 crore.

With the introduction of the new eligibility criteria, participation in judicial service exams is likely to decline, particularly among those from less privileged backgrounds. As a result, fewer candidates may qualify and an even smaller number may clear the interview stage.

This could lead to an increase in unfilled vacancies in the lower judiciary, further exacerbating the already critical issue of judicial backlog. The existing civil judges would then be left to shoulder a heavier caseload, potentially affecting the overall efficiency and quality of judicial delivery.

Participation among women candidates

Another concern the Supreme Court ruling overlooks is its potential to discourage many aspirants, especially women, who may now reconsider pursuing judicial services due to the added hurdles. In recent years, women have been increasingly entering judicial services, largely because the path allowed them the flexibility to study from home and clear the exams within a reasonable timeframe.

However, it is important to acknowledge that societal norms in many parts of India still expect women to marry early or shoulder family responsibilities. In this context, an extended and uncertain career start marked by three years of litigation with little or no income makes it especially difficult for women to secure the patience or support of their families to pursue a career in the judiciary.

Age factor overlooked

Another key aspect the judgment overlooks is the practical impact on the timeline for aspiring judges. With many States capping the upper age limit at 30–32 years for general category candidates, the mandatory three-year practice rule significantly shortens the preparation window.

This puts students who begin their legal education later, especially those pursuing a three-year LL.B. after graduation, at a disadvantage, making their decision to aim for judicial services far more difficult and time-sensitive.

The judgment also overlooks aspirants who are already nearing the maximum age limit. It fails to provide any relaxation or transitional window for such candidates to complete the new eligibility criteria or at least be allowed to appear for the upcoming recruitment cycles under the previous rules.

Will three years at the Bar really make better judges?

Several States that supported the minimum practice requirement told the Supreme Court that fresh law graduates, when directly appointed to the Bench, often behave disrespectfully towards the Bar. It was argued that mandatory practice would instill professional humility and improve judicial conduct.

It is difficult to comprehend how subjective traits like humility or respect can be legislated into eligibility criteria. What assurance is there that three years of practice will suddenly cultivate respect? Can we measure or guarantee that moral character improves with time at the Bar?

Next, it was argued before the Court that introducing this eligibility criterion would help bring in more skilled candidates with practical knowledge of court functioning. How can the Court be so certain that mandating three years of Bar experience will guarantee better talent on the Bench?

Rather than imposing a fixed duration of practice, the emphasis should have been on robust, well-structured judicial training programs focusing on courtroom conduct, handling the Bar and core litigation skills. A lawyer with three years of practice may still lack comprehensive experience or mentorship. Moreover, there is no clarity or benchmark on what constitutes a “skilled judge” within those three years, making this requirement arbitrary and exclusionary rather than transformative.

Former judge and now independent practitioner Bharat Chugh, who himself cleared the Delhi Judicial Services at the young age of 23, said,

"I can speak from experience that young, idealistic and extremely talented youth aspire to be adjudicators. Telling them to park the aspiration for 3 years and enter practice instead may hurt this aspiration more than it helps their ability to adjudicate. It may not be accurate to equate young judges with fresh law graduates. We are missing that they undergo extensive training before actually assuming charge which is long and extensive. They get to sit with judges right from magistrates to the High Court. I can say from experience, this year-long process is not only thorough but life changing. We may always have conversations about ways in which the training may be improved, and the judicial academies are already working in that direction."

He further emphasised that law is a marathon, not a sprint, and it often takes a decade to truly find one’s footing at the Bar. In his view, a mandatory three-year practice requirement may not significantly enhance a candidate’s overall suitability for the judiciary.

"In litigation, young lawyers often struggle to find good mentors and financial stability, with the profession itself being saturated, unequal, and marked by privilege. Without a level playing field, not everyone can access the Bar equally," he added.

He highlighted that catching candidates young and training them as judges has its advantages, especially amid rising case backlog and the need for a modern judiciary.

"The ‘too young to judge’ argument also discounts the fact that a 24-year-old surgeon can perform a life-threatening surgery. A 24-year-old IAS and IPS officer routinely takes decisions that alter people’s lives. The age argument could be made there too."

However, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose expressed a different view. He opined that a minimum level of practical exposure to the Bar is essential before beginning a judicial career, as it equips a judge with a broader perspective to effectively handle cases.

According to him, practical experience enables a candidate to understand the challenges of legal practice and provides essential training in drafting pleadings - skills that are crucial for writing clear and effective judgments.

Sitting judges had interesting takes on the implications of the judgment.

A magistrate from West Bengal opined that the judgment seems to be an attempt to appease Senior Advocates who feel their 'dignity' is compromised when presenting cases before fresh law graduates turned judicial officers, rather than addressing ground realities.

"The standard of law schools should be checked and raised to bring out a better pool of graduates ready to take on the challenge of the real world. In this day and age, the young ones are more talented and far more advanced in grasping and understanding. Thus, the imposition of this condition will be a downfall for the judiciary in the long run (it will not take much time before the negative effect starts to take place) which is also threatened by the advancement of AI in the legal field," he expressed.

Another civil judge from Patna said that once candidates begin practicing in courts, they often become fully immersed in the profession, leaving little time or energy for preparation.

"This is especially challenging for female aspirants, who may face additional societal pressures, such as expectations to marry early, limiting the time they can devote to both practice and exam readiness. Moreover, financial stability in litigation takes time, and many young lawyers struggle to earn a steady income in their initial years, making it even more difficult to sustain themselves while preparing for competitive exams."

What to expect

Amid the prevailing ambiguity and genuine concerns of aspiring candidates, one can only hope that these issues will soon be acknowledged and addressed by the relevant stakeholders as they move forward with implementing the three-year litigation practice rule.

A policy aimed at reform must not become a roadblock for deserving aspirants but must be guided by clarity, fairness and inclusivity.