The Supreme Court of India has reinstated a crucial requirement for judicial aspirants: candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams across India must now have a minimum of three years’ legal practice at the Bar. This move, while aimed at ensuring better-prepared judges, has sparked significant debate about its real-world impact on thousands of aspiring judicial officers.
The Supreme Court Verdict
On May 20, 2025, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih directed all State governments to amend their rules to include this practice requirement. The decision, reserved in January, responded to concerns from multiple High Courts about the lack of courtroom exposure among newly appointed judges.
Key directives from the judgment:
- A minimum of three years’ legal practice, endorsed by an advocate with at least ten years of experience.
- Law clerkship experience will count towards the three-year requirement.
- A one-year training program for newly appointed judges.
- The rule will apply prospectively and won’t impact ongoing recruitment.
- The three-year count begins from the date of provisional enrolment, not AIBE clearance.
Historical Context: A Longstanding Debate
The requirement of Bar experience for judicial roles has seen considerable shifts:
- The 116th and 117th Law Commission Reports questioned the utility of a three-year requirement, calling it insufficient.
- The 118th Report acknowledged its non-essential nature but suggested continuation.
- In 1993, the Supreme Court mandated three years of practice in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India.
- This was overturned in 2002 based on the Shetty Commission’s recommendations, citing the deterrent effect on top talent.
The pendulum now swings back in favor of Bar experience, reigniting old concerns.
Practical Challenges for Aspirants
1. Barriers for the Economically Underprivileged
Most junior lawyers receive little or no stipend. Aspiring judges from rural or economically weaker backgrounds may now face insurmountable challenges. Surviving for three years without income can drive aspirants to abandon their goals.
A judicial magistrate from West Bengal told Bar & Bench:
“They will learn nothing and ultimately leave preparation… The practical effect will be a worsened condition of the judiciary.”
2. Exclusion of Non-Litigating Lawyers
Candidates working in corporate law firms or in-house legal roles will now be ineligible unless they shift to litigation. This could lead to significant personal and financial sacrifices with no guaranteed return.
3. Judicial Vacancies and Backlogs
India currently faces 5,245 vacancies in subordinate courts and 4.53 crore pending cases. Reduced participation in exams due to the new rule may worsen this crisis.
4. Impact on Women Candidates
Judicial services have attracted increasing numbers of women due to exam-based entry. The new rule could be especially discouraging for women, given societal expectations and lack of financial independence during the mandatory practice period.
5. Age Restrictions and Time Crunch
Most States cap the upper age limit at 30–32 years. The three-year practice requirement effectively shrinks the preparation window, particularly for those entering law through a three-year LLB after graduation.
The Court’s ruling also lacks transitional provisions for those nearing the age limit.
Is Bar Experience the Right Measure?
Supporters of the ruling argue that prior courtroom experience:
- Instills humility and professional ethics.
- Builds practical knowledge in drafting and argumentation.
However, critics highlight that:
- There’s no guarantee that three years at the Bar makes one a better judge.
- Judicial academies already offer year-long, intensive training for new judges.
- Not all practicing lawyers receive meaningful mentoring.
Former judge Bharat Chugh, who joined the judiciary at 23, emphasized:
“We are missing that they undergo extensive training before actually assuming charge… The ‘too young to judge’ argument discounts the fact that a 24-year-old surgeon can perform a life-threatening surgery.”
He argues that litigation is unequal and privilege-driven, making access to meaningful experience selective.
Divergent Views in the Legal Community
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose supports the ruling, stating:
“A minimum level of practical exposure to the Bar is essential… It equips a judge with the perspective to handle cases effectively.”
In contrast, many believe the emphasis should lie in better training and judicial mentorship, not arbitrary years of practice.
Conclusion: A Mixed Verdict for the Future
The Supreme Court’s ruling reintroduces a well-meaning but contentious filter for judicial appointments. While it aims to elevate the practical competence of judges, the cost may be exclusion—of women, the underprivileged, non-litigation professionals, and talented young minds who once saw the judiciary as a direct career path.
The judiciary’s strength lies not just in experience, but in diversity, ethics, empathy, and rigorous training. Whether the three-year requirement enriches or narrows the Bench remains to be seen.