New Delhi: In a landmark judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reinstated the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates applying for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position in subordinate judicial services. This decision, pronounced by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai, alongside Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, marks a significant shift in judicial recruitment policy, reversing a 2002 ruling that had previously scrapped the three-year practice requirement to attract fresh law graduates. The ruling aims to ensure that judicial officers possess practical courtroom experience, addressing concerns about the inefficacy of appointing inexperienced law graduates to judicial roles.
Background of the 3-Year Rule
The requirement for three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for subordinate judicial services has a storied history. The issue was first addressed in the 14th Law Commission of India (LCI) report in 1958, chaired by M.C. Setalvad. The LCI recommended that candidates with three to five years of legal practice should be eligible to compete for lower subordinate judicial positions, emphasizing the importance of practical experience in drafting pleadings, appreciating evidence, and writing judgments. The commission also proposed the All India Judicial Service (AIJS), a centralized recruitment system for judges, which would allow fresh law graduates aged 21–25 to compete without requiring prior practice, provided they underwent a robust training program.
In 1992, the Supreme Court, in the case of All India Judges’ Association vs. Union of India, endorsed the LCI’s recommendations for AIJS and uniform service conditions for judges. However, a review petition in 1993 (All India Judges’ Assn. (II) vs. Union of India) emphasized that a minimum of three years of legal practice was essential for subordinate judicial services. The court argued that fresh law graduates, without practical experience, were ill-equipped to handle the responsibilities of a judicial officer, who must adjudicate matters involving life, liberty, property, and reputation from their first day in office. The court directed all states to prescribe three years of practice as a mandatory qualification for entry-level judicial officers.
However, in 2002, the Supreme Court, influenced by the Justice Shetty Commission (formed in 1996 to review judicial service conditions), reversed this stance in All India Judges’ Association vs. Union of India. The Shetty Commission found that the three-year rule deterred bright law graduates from joining judicial services, as many were drawn to lucrative corporate careers after a few years of practice. The commission noted that advocates with 4–7 years of experience were often selected at ages 27–30, reducing the appeal of judicial service. Accepting these findings, the court scrapped the three-year rule to attract younger talent, a decision that shaped judicial recruitment for over two decades.
The 2025 Judgment: Restoring the 3-Year Rule
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling reinstates the three-year legal practice requirement, citing feedback from high courts over the past 20 years. The bench, led by CJI Bhushan R. Gavai, observed that the recruitment of fresh law graduates has proven “detrimental” to the judiciary. The court noted that inexperienced judges often lack familiarity with courtroom procedures, litigation processes, and the nuances of justice administration. “The appointment of such fresh law graduates has led to many problems,” the judgment stated, highlighting issues such as behavioral and temperament challenges among newly appointed judges.
The court emphasized that only practicing lawyers can fully grasp the intricacies of litigation and the administration of justice. “Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system,” CJI Gavai observed. The bench directed all high courts and state governments to amend their judicial service rules within three months to mandate a minimum of three years of legal practice for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. These amendments must be approved by state governments within an additional three-month period.
To ensure fairness, the court clarified that the new rule will not apply to ongoing or already notified recruitment processes. “The requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process prior to the date of this judgment and shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process,” the court stated. This ensures that candidates currently in the recruitment pipeline are not disadvantaged by the sudden policy shift.
Key Features of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s ruling includes several specific provisions to streamline the implementation of the three-year rule and enhance the quality of judicial recruits:
- Counting Legal Practice: The three-year practice period will be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, not from the date of clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This accommodates candidates who begin practicing immediately after law school, as the AIBE is conducted at varying intervals.
- Experience Certification: Candidates must submit an experience certificate verified by either a principal judicial officer of the court where they practice or an advocate with at least 10 years of standing at the Bar, duly endorsed by the principal judicial officer. For those practicing in high courts or the Supreme Court, the certificate must be issued by an advocate with 10 years of standing, endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court.
- Law Clerk Experience: The court recognized the value of practical exposure gained outside traditional legal practice. Experience as a law clerk to a judge or judicial officer will be counted toward the three-year requirement, broadening the eligibility criteria for candidates with diverse legal backgrounds.
- Mandatory Training: In addition to the practice requirement, the court mandated a minimum of one year of training for entry-level judicial candidates before they can preside over a court. This aims to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, ensuring that new judges are well-prepared for their roles.
- Recruitment in Abeyance: Recruitment processes that were paused pending the judgment can now proceed under the rules applicable at the time of their advertisement. This ensures continuity for candidates already in the selection process.
Constitutional Framework
The judgment aligns with the constitutional framework governing subordinate courts. Under Article 234 of the Constitution, appointments to judicial services (other than district judges) are made by the Governor of the state in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. Article 235 vests control over district and subordinate courts in the High Court, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in shaping recruitment policies. The Supreme Court’s directive to amend service rules reflects its authority to ensure uniformity and quality in judicial appointments across states.
Implications and Challenges
The restoration of the three-year rule has sparked a heated debate among stakeholders. Proponents, including the Bar Council of India and state bar councils, argue that prior practice equips judges with essential skills, enhancing the quality of judgments and maintaining judicial credibility. However, critics, including law graduates and academicians, contend that the rule creates an arbitrary barrier, limiting opportunities for fresh talent and disproportionately affecting economically disadvantaged candidates, particularly from SC/ST/OBC communities.
The economic implications are significant. Many law graduates, especially from National Law Universities (NLUs), face substantial education loans, with five-year programs costing ₹12–₹15 lakh at NLUs and ₹20–₹40 lakh at private law schools. The Bar Council of India’s minimum stipend for junior lawyers—₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban centers—is often insufficient, especially compared to minimum wages for unskilled workers (₹18,456/month) or non-matriculants (₹20,371/month) in Delhi. This financial strain may deter talented candidates from pursuing judicial services, as they may opt for more lucrative careers in civil services, public sector undertakings, or academia.
The rule also raises concerns about gender equity. Women, who constitute 38% of district judiciary judges (with nine of the top 10 candidates in the recent Bihar judicial services exam being female), may face setbacks due to career breaks or maternity leaves, which could hinder their ability to meet the three-year practice requirement. Additionally, the age disparity between judicial and civil services aspirants is notable. Civil services exams require only a final-year degree, while judicial services now demand five to six years of education plus three years of practice, potentially rendering candidates older and financially vulnerable compared to their civil service counterparts.
Historical Context and Policy Shifts
The 2025 ruling reflects the Supreme Court’s oscillation on this issue. The 1993 judgment emphasized practical experience, while the 2002 ruling prioritized attracting young talent. The current decision, driven by high court feedback, suggests a return to prioritizing experience over accessibility. Critics argue that the court’s reliance on high court affidavits lacks empirical evidence, as no data was presented on the “lower quality” of fresh graduates or the number of graduates who qualified for judicial services shortly after graduation.
The 14th LCI report’s vision for AIJS, which aimed to recruit fresh graduates through a national exam and robust training, remains unimplemented. The report’s dual approach—requiring experience for state-level exams but not for AIJS—highlights the ongoing tension between accessibility and expertise in judicial recruitment.
Proposed Solutions
To address the challenges posed by the three-year rule, experts suggest several reforms:
- Extended Training: Instead of excluding fresh graduates, the judiciary could extend the training period to two years, combining academic learning with practical exposure. Trainee officers could serve as probationers under district or high court judges or shadow senior lawyers for six months.
- Innovative Examinations: Judicial service exams should shift from rote memorization to scenario-based questions and judgment writing, testing practical skills and critical thinking.
- Addressing Economic Barriers: Financial support or stipends for junior lawyers could encourage candidates from diverse backgrounds to pursue judicial careers without economic hardship.
- Regular Exam Schedules: Unlike civil services exams, judicial service exams are held irregularly in many states. Standardizing exam schedules could reduce delays for candidates who meet the practice requirement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the three-year legal practice rule for subordinate judicial services reflects a commitment to enhancing judicial competence through practical experience. While the decision aims to improve courtroom decorum, procedural understanding, and empathy among judges, it raises significant challenges for fresh law graduates, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or facing gender-related barriers. As high courts and state governments prepare to amend their service rules within the stipulated six-month period, the judiciary must balance the need for experienced judges with the imperative to attract diverse, talented candidates. Innovative training programs, reformed examination structures, and financial support for aspiring lawyers could pave the way for a more inclusive and effective judicial system.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What is the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the 3-year law practice requirement for judicial services?
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, reinstated the requirement that candidates applying for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position in subordinate judicial services must have a minimum of three years of legal practice. This decision, pronounced by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai, reverses a 2002 ruling that had eliminated this requirement to attract fresh law graduates. The court also mandated one year of training for entry-level judicial candidates before they can preside over a court and allowed experience as a law clerk to count toward the three-year requirement.
2. Why did the Supreme Court reinstate the 3-year legal practice rule?
The court cited feedback from high courts over the past 20 years, indicating that recruiting fresh law graduates without practical experience has been “detrimental” to the judiciary. Inexperienced judges often lack familiarity with courtroom procedures, litigation processes, and the administration of justice, leading to issues such as behavioral and temperament problems. The court emphasized that firsthand experience in courts is essential for judges to handle cases involving life, liberty, property, and reputation effectively.
3. How will the 3-year practice requirement be implemented?
The Supreme Court directed all high courts and state governments to amend their judicial service rules within three months to mandate three years of legal practice for candidates appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam, with state government approval required within an additional three months. The practice period is calculated from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, not the All India Bar Examination. Candidates must submit an experience certificate verified by a principal judicial officer or an advocate with 10 years of standing, endorsed by a judicial officer. The rule will apply only to new recruitment processes, not ongoing or notified ones.
4. Who is affected by this ruling, and are there any exceptions?
The ruling affects aspiring judicial officers who wish to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam, requiring them to have three years of legal practice. However, it does not apply to recruitment processes already initiated or notified before May 20, 2025. Experience as a law clerk to a judge or judicial officer will count toward the three-year requirement, providing some flexibility. The mandatory one-year training period applies to all newly appointed judicial candidates before they can preside over a court.
5. What are the criticisms and proposed solutions for the 3-year rule?
Critics argue that the rule creates barriers for fresh law graduates, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or women who may face career breaks due to maternity. It may deter talent from joining judicial services, as many graduates face financial pressures from education loans and low stipends for junior lawyers. Proposed solutions include extending the training period to two years, reforming exams to focus on practical skills like judgment writing, providing financial support for junior lawyers, and standardizing exam schedules to reduce delays for candidates meeting the practice requirement.
