Author: Suktika Bhattarcharyya, Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College, University of Calcutta
In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Others (2024) on 19th May 2025, upheld the declaration of mandating a minimum 3-year practice at the bar as a mandatory rule for appearing in the Judicial Service Examination. This decision has sparked a widespread debate across the nation. While few scholars and advocates have shown their support for this necessary reform to professionalize the judiciary, reducing inexperienced application of junior judges, and for the implementation of practical wisdom, the critics, on the other hand, highlighted the frustration among the young aspirants belonging to economically weaker sectors, through this demonstration. This article critically examines the declaration of the Supreme Court by balancing legal reasoning with policy consideration and aims to evaluate the declaration as ensuring quality or curtailing access.
To the Point
The three – judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered this verdict in the matter of All India Judges Association v. Union of India. The Supreme Court emphasized that the three-year practice period can be calculated from the date of provisional enrollment with the Bar Council, thereby offering some leeway for candidates. In adherence to the requirement, a certificate issued by an advocate having at least ten years of standing and endorsed by a judicial officer of the relevant station would suffice. Additionally, lawyers practising before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and High Courts should have the certificate registered by the designated officers of the respective court. To widen the definition of practice, the court included experience as a law clerk as a matter of qualification. The Court further elaborated that, “Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice. This is possible when the candidate is exposed to the working of the court…and observing how lawyers and judges’ function in the court”, highlighting the necessity of understanding the intricacy of judge and the judiciary for fresh law graduates and this pre-service training will uphold the reputation of the judiciary.
The following issues were addressed in All India Judges Association vs Union of India –
Should a minimum of three years of legal practice be mandated as a prerequisite for candidates appearing in Civil Judge Junior division judicial service examinations?
If yes, how should this requirement be applied to ongoing and future recruitment processes?
Whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service, needs to be restored to 25% as per All India Judges Association vs Union of India 1991 case?
Whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, and if so, by how many years?
Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidates from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to maintain an incentive for merit in the Junior division?
If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof and what should be the minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
Whether the quota to be reserved for the departmental examinations in a particular year should be calculated on the cadre strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in the recruitment year?
Whether some suitability test should also be introduced while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges against the existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Services based on merit-cum-seniority?
The Origins of the Debate
The debate on requiring mandatory legal practice at the Bar before appearing for judicial services (specifically for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts) has a long-term root.
The Civil Justice Committee Report of 1924-25 stated that, “The rule in various states which requires the candidates to have practiced at the Bar for 3 years doesn’t guarantee that the candidate has gained any real experience.” This concern shows that this practice was a matter of discussion at that time, also. Further, in the 116th report of the Law Commission recommended the abolition of the mandatory 3- years practice rule, and again in the 117th report, the claim was marked as unsustainable, as practice for 2-3 years doesn’t help the candidates gain experience to serve as future judges. But a deviation was noticed in the 118th Law Commission report that the 3- year practice rule for judicial service can be continued despite not being inevitable to develop fundamental skills for becoming a judge.
The case of All India Judges Association vs Union of India revolving around the eligibility criteria for entry into the Judicial Service in India, mainly focusing on whether a minimum of three years’ practice as an Advocate should be a mandatory requirement for candidates aspiring to enter the Judicial Service is also consisted with several key facts over years.
In 1991, the Government of India, by a resolution dated 21st March, constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K.J. Shetty (hereinafter referred to as “Shetty Commission”).
In 1993 Supreme Court in this case observed that three years of practice as an advocate were mandatory for appearing in the Judicial Service. In due course, it was found that young law graduates, after gaining three years of practice, often found the Judicial Service insufficiently appealing.
After several deliberation was made on 11th November 1999 the Shetty commission submitted the report with the recommendation of the removal of the three years of practice a mandatory rule with recommending Recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre), a 25% quota for direct recruitment from advocates and 75% by promotion in an addition.
In All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2002, the Court directed the High Courts and the State Governments to amend their rules, thereby enabling fresh law graduates, who may not have even completed three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. However, the Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India also recommended that every fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should undergo training for not less than one year, and preferably for two years.
In All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2002, the Supreme Court “After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission…that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years.’’ But in addition, it was mentioned that every fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should undergo training for a period of not less than one year, and preferably for two years.
The Proof
Comparative Analysis of the Global Practices:
Globally, different countries have different models to follow for the recruitment of the post of judges and magistrates. In Italy, graduates are eligible to compete for the post of magistrate without having any prior experience of practicing. In Scotland, candidates require a minimum of 10 years of practice to be eligible for a similar post. In Canada no such examinations are held, rather, the applied candidates are selected by examining eligibility through an independent judiciary committee. In countries like England and Wales, candidates are required to have experience as barristers and solicitors for at least 5-7 years for the post of District Judge. In Spain, fresh law graduates must appear in a national- level test to become a part of the judiciary, and thereafter, a training period of 2 years is mandatory. However, no such stipulation about prior practice is there. Ireland follows a “career judiciary” model in which law graduates complete two years under a senior judge and then the Judicial Studies Institute provides a structured pre-appointment training that has no strict years of practice rule beyond the initial experience. Contrary to Asian countries like Singapore offer top LLB graduates into judicial service along with a mandatory 3 -year training period.
These various model across different nations shows that prior practice can’t be the only solution for increasing the competency in the judiciary, rather, it can be structured in multiple ways of blending early practice and increasing training period.
The Challenges Associated with 3-Year Mandates
Barrier to entry for Fresh Graduates: The fresh law graduates those who were previously eligible, immediately after passing their final year exam, have now been coerced to delay their entry into the judiciary. Aspirants preparing for years for the exam will suffer from mental distress with a lack of self-conformity in addition. It not only increases the opportunity cost but also imposes a financial burden of 3 years of often unpaid or underpaid legal practice for the fresh graduates coming from lower – income background. A study had shown that more than 79% of lawyers with less than 2 years of experience have an earning below Rs 10,000.
Disparity in Quality of experience: Junior advocates of metro-cities often get easy access to courtrooms along with the students with a strong judicial background in family, while the rural ones suffer to get a chamber of senior for sincere practice. The preference of various private universities over Government Colleges is amongst the crucial burdens in legal practice or getting an internship. Many junior lawyers spend their early years doing support work for seniors rather than substantive legal practice.
Risk of Manipulation: Bar Council registration doesn’t always reflect active and consistent practice, making enforcement inconsistent, and also the increase in manipulating enrolment may cause.
Impact on Women & Marginalized Groups: Women may face challenges in sustaining a three-year legal practice after 5 years of course and preparing for the judicial service exam, holding another few years in hand, unpredictable due to safety, mobility and social pressure. This will lead to more male dominance in this profession (as of 2025, women judges share only 14% and 38% positions in High Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts in India). Additionally, SC/ST, OBC candidates often face a lack in getting access to a strong professional network, reducing diversity in the judicial forum.
Judicial Vacancies and Delay: 17 large states with more than 25% cases pending for more than 3 years at the subordinate court level. In 22 states/UTs, the share of cases pending for more than 5 years went up from IJR 3 at the subordinate court level. In 15 states and UTs, the share of cases pending for more than 5 years went up from IJR 3 at the High Court level. India has an abysmally low judge-to-population ratio:
Sanctioned Strength: ~25,000 judges
Actual Working Judges: ~20,000
Recommended Ratio (Law Commission): 50 judges per million population
India’s Actual Ratio: ~20 per million
As an example, we can state the case study on national Delhi where in District Courts over 8 lakhs cases and in High Court 95000 pending cases with High pendency observed in MACT, civil revision petitions, bail applications, and commercial suits because of shortage of judicial officers, delays in appointment of additional judges including lack of infrastructural development.
The average workload per judge has significantly increased as case pendencies have risen. At the end of 2024, most high courts, apart from Sikkim, Tripura, and Meghalaya, averaged over 1,000 cases per judge, with Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh high court judges’ workloads amounting to an astonishing 15,000 cases each. At the district court level, the average workload rose to 2,200 cases per judge, with substantial state variations. Twenty-eight states/UTs saw an average of 500-plus cases per judge, with Karnataka judges managing nearly 1,750, Kerala judges managing 3,800, and Uttar Pradesh judges 4,300. Only seven states/UTs maintained workloads below 300 cases per judge. Therefore, these declarations will further exacerbate the issue at various levels of Courts, discouraging capable candidates.
Various critics pointed out that questioning of BCI on the incompetency of officers is like questioning its institution.
Why is it Necessary?
Supporters on, the other hand, argue that the three-year mandate is a necessary reform that can enhance judicial competence, maturity, and public trust in the justice system.
1. Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice: Legal education in India being, foundational, emphasizes theoretical learning over courtroom experiences. Fresh graduates can be well- versed in various aspects of laws, jurisprudence, but often lack in the functions of law in real- world scenarios. These three years of practice will offer the young aspirants the exposure to courtroom dramas to interpret and apply in their verdict from the very beginning of their judicial career.
2. Enhancing Judicial Competence and Maturity: Delivering judgements requires decision making, withholding far-reaching vision, more than just academic knowledge. Hence development of critical thinking under pressure should be developed with hands-on experience in legal proceedings. Therefore, judges with prior experience will be better equipped to make fair and reasonable judgements in complex cases.
4. Encouraging Professional Dedication: Practice for 3 years will help the real aspirants with the vision of serving the nation, who not only view it as a stable Government job securing financial stability but also as a commitment, to immerse themselves in the legal profession and help to become more passionate and expert.
5. Improving Courtroom Management and Judicial Temperament: A good judge should have the ability control their courtrooms with authority and fairness. By prior practice of three years, they will be developed with resilience, patience, and an understanding of the pressures faced by legal professionals. These qualities are essential for fostering a healthy judge-lawyer dynamic and ensuring that trials are conducted with decorum and efficiency.
6. Strengthening Public Trust in the Judiciary: The judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, and its legitimacy depends on public confidence in the competence and integrity of its judges. Appointing individuals with proven legal experience can reassure the public that judges have not only passed exams but have also lived and understood the practice of law. This credibility is crucial in the biggest populous country with the largest democracy in the world, where millions of citizens seek justice from the courts each year.
Moreover, there is a need for transparency in these institutions and for reforming the courses as training. BCI must look after them and modify policies to suit the present scenario.
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict in All India Judges Association v. Union of India upheld the mandate requiring a minimum of three years’ legal practice to appear in Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams. While aimed at improving judicial competence and practical insight, the judgment has triggered nationwide debate. Proponents argue it bridges the gap between theory and practice, enhances judicial maturity, and aligns with global best practices. Critics raise concerns over access, financial strain on underprivileged aspirants, gender disparity, and worsening judicial vacancies. The ruling includes flexibility, counting provisional enrolment and law clerkships as valid practice and stresses practical exposure over bookish knowledge. Historical perspectives and global models suggest that practice alone isn’t the sole path to judicial competence. The article advocates for a balanced approach-structured judicial apprenticeships, transparent validation of legal experience, and policy reforms ensuring inclusivity and efficiency in recruitment.
Additional Case laws
Garima Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)- In this verdict the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendment to Rule 7 to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, this stipulated that the candidates must have either three years of legal practice, or they should have secured at least 70% marks in their LL.B degree.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024) -The Supreme Court stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had restrained the recruitment of civil judges without the mandatory three-year practice. This allowed the recruitment process to continue under the amended rules pending a final verdict.
Conclusion
If judicial integrity is the end goal, experience must be a means, not a barrier. A balanced, inclusive, and transparent framework can transform this mandate into a meaningful step forward for India’s justice delivery system, rather than a restrictive gatekeeping mechanism. There is a need to establish a Judicial Apprenticeship Pathway introducing a formalized program supervised by judges and senior advocates, administered by State Judicial Academies. Along with this, introduction of fellowships, stipend-based bar internships, developing a standardized mechanism for verifying legal practice, ensuring transparency across various states, with a reform in legal education to integrate practical exposure are the need of this hour.
FAQs
What is the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision on the eligibility for the Judicial Services Examination?
Ans- The Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2024), decided on May 19, 2025, upheld that a minimum of three years of legal practice at the Bar is mandatory to appear for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations across India. The ruling aims to ensure judicial competence through real-world legal experience.
Why is the three-year practice rule controversial?
Ans-It is controversial because it affects fresh law graduates, especially those from economically weaker sections, delays career entry, and increases opportunity cost. Additionally disadvantageous to rural candidates, women, and marginalized communities due to structural barriers in society to accessing quality legal practice.
What historical background led to this debate?
Ans- This debate spans a century, from the Civil Justice Committee (1924-25) and Law Commission Reports (116th to 118th) debating the merit of such a rule, to the Shetty Commission (1993), which initially supported it, but later recommended removal of the mandatory requirement in 1999. Further, in 2002, the SC ruled the 3-year mandate as non-mandatory but required judicial recruits to undergo 1–2 years of training.
What solutions can address both competence and accessibility?
Ans-Introduction of a Judicial Apprenticeship Pathway under State Judicial Academies, offering stipend-based internships or fellowships to reduce financial burden, standardize and digitize certification and practice validation, ensure diversity and inclusivity by supporting marginalized aspirants.
References
1 2025 INSC 735
2 Supreme Court Reinstates 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service: Experience Now a Prerequisite, Not an Option – Desi Kaanoon
3 Supreme Court Reinstates 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service: Experience Now a Prerequisite, Not an Option – Desi
Kaanoon
4 Supreme Court Reinstates 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service: Experience Now
a Prerequisite, Not an Option – Desi Kaanoon
5 All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025: Supreme Court Case
6 Full text of “Civil Justice Commettee 1924-25 Report” 7 All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025: Supreme Court Case
8 All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025: Supreme Court Case
9 Supreme Court Reinstates 3-Year Practice Rule for Judicial Service: Experience Now a Prerequisite, Not an Option – Desi Kaanoon
10 All India Judges Association vs Union of India 2025: Supreme Court Case
11
: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/article s/years-practice-required-for-judicial-servi ce-examination–17719.asp
12 IJR-4 Full-Report English Low-1.pdf
13 Pending Cases in Indian Courts: A Deep Dive into the Crisis of Judicial Delay -Advocate Abhishek Gandhi
14 Pending Cases in Indian Courts: A Deep Dive into the Crisis of Judicial Delay -Advocate Abhishek Gandhi
15 Pending Cases in Indian Courts: A Deep Dive into the Crisis of Judicial Delay -Advocate Abhishek Gandhi 16
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/years-practice-required-for-judicial-service -examination–17719.asp
17 W.P. No.28853 of 2024
18 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.48636 of 2024
