Author: Vaidika Pandey, Avantika University Ujjain
Abstract
In a significant development in 2024–25, the Supreme Court of India proposed a mandatory three-year courtroom practice for aspirants before they can sit for judicial service examinations. This directive has sparked a nationwide debate among legal academia, law students, and practitioners. While some hail it as a step toward experiential maturity, others question its feasibility and fairness. This article delves deep into the legal, educational, and social implications of the decision—exploring its potential to reform the judiciary on one hand and its unintended consequences on the other.
To the Point
In essence, the Supreme Court’s order intends to make budding judges gain firsthand experience in litigation before becoming judicial officers. It aims to bridge the gap between legal theory and courtroom reality by making practice a prerequisite. But will this enhance judicial quality or discourage deserving young minds?
Legal Jargon Explained
Bar: The collective term for practicing advocates.
Bench: Refers to judges or the judiciary as a whole.
Judicial Service Examination (JSE): Competitive exam conducted by states to recruit civil judges (entry-level judiciary).
Eligibility Criteria: Legal and procedural qualifications needed to apply for a government or legal post.
Doctrine of Reasonable Classification: A principle under Article 14 that allows laws to treat groups differently if the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.
The Supreme Court’s Order: What Happened?
In response to concerns raised in multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs), and during a hearing related to judicial quality and pendency of cases, the Supreme Court suggested that fresh graduates may lack the necessary practical acumen to handle the judiciary’s responsibility. A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul emphasized the need for “a minimum of three years of bar practice” before sitting for the Judicial Service Exams. While not yet codified into statute, this observation has prompted state Public Service Commissions to begin aligning eligibility rules accordingly.
The Positives: Why Experience Before Exams Could Work
1. Enhances Practical Understanding
Law school often focuses on theory—contracts, torts, jurisprudence—without real exposure to litigation. Firsthand courtroom experience:
Sharpens procedural knowledge (CPC, CrPC).
Teaches the dynamics of evidence and witness handling.
Exposes aspirants to case management and legal drafting.
“A judge without litigation experience may become a law robot; a judge with it becomes a law craftsman.”
2. Better Judicial Temperament
Judging is more than writing orders; it requires empathy, patience, discretion, and logical consistency—qualities developed in courtrooms, not classrooms. Experience fosters:
Confidence to handle litigants and lawyers.
Conflict resolution ability.
Better grasp of societal realities.
3. Filtering Unfit Candidates
Judiciary is not just a job—it’s a calling. Requiring practice ensures that only the most determined and committed candidates persist. Many join law due to peer pressure or as a backup plan; courtroom struggle weeds out disinterested aspirants.
4. Bridges the Bench-Bar Divide
Historically, judges and lawyers have had a tense relationship due to differing expectations. When judges understand the everyday challenges of lawyers (delays, documentation, adjournments), they tend to be more understanding.
5. International Best Practice
Countries like the UK, US, and even Germany require years of legal practice or judicial training before someone becomes a judge. India’s prior practice of recruiting fresh graduates is increasingly seen as outdated in a complex legal world.
The Negatives: Why the Rule May Be Problematic
1. Structural Inequality
Law graduates from elite institutions (NLUs, private colleges) may easily find chambers to practice, but those from Tier-2/3 colleges in rural areas often struggle to even get internships. The policy unintentionally widens the opportunity gap between urban and rural aspirants.
“A rule that benefits some must not inadvertently punish others.”
2. Financial Hardship
Early years of practice are often unpaid or underpaid. Students from marginalized backgrounds—SC/ST/OBC/EWS—rely on judicial jobs as stable, respectful, and secure employment straight out of law school. A delay of two years without income could deter them.
3. Ambiguity in Implementation
The directive raises questions:
Will bar experience be self-certified or verified by State Bar Councils?
Will internships or moot courts count?
What about candidates preparing full-time for judiciary exams?
Until clarified, the rule may breed inconsistency and confusion across states.
4. Delayed Career Path
Judicial services already involve years of preparation, with multiple attempts. Adding two years of practice delays career initiation, especially when compared with other civil services (IAS, IPS) that don’t require field experience pre-exam.
5. Gendered Impact
In many conservative regions, female candidates face family restrictions on courtroom practice due to stigma or safety concerns. The rule could disproportionately reduce female participation in the lower judiciary.
The Proof: Evidence From the Ground
A study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (2023) revealed that judges who had some legal practice before joining performed better in judicial writing and case disposal in their first two years.
However, a survey by LiveLaw (2024) showed that 68% of aspirants opposed the rule due to financial reasons and family pressure.
States like Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are reportedly considering revising their Judicial Services Exam guidelines, indicating a shift toward enforcing this eligibility clause.
Case Laws and Precedents
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119
Facts:
The All India Judges’ Association filed a petition under Article 32, seeking better service conditions for judges in the subordinate judiciary, including pay, training, and recruitment standards.
Legal Issue:
Whether judicial officers’ recruitment and post-appointment training required reforms to uphold the independence and efficiency of the judiciary?
Held:
The Supreme Court directed the formation of a judicial training institute in each state and emphasized the need for continuous judicial education. It also laid the foundation for recruitment reforms and insisted that judicial officers must be equipped with both legal acumen and real-world experience.
Relevance to Current Order:
This case laid the doctrinal groundwork for reforming judicial appointments. The current Supreme Court stance, requiring 3 years of practice, can be seen as an extension of the spirit of this judgment—to ensure judges are not just academically eligible, but practically capable.
2. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (2000) 4 SCC 640
Facts:
Bal Mukund Sah, a candidate selected for judicial services, was found to lack proper practical legal knowledge during training and probation. The State of Bihar terminated his services.
Legal Issue:
Was the termination lawful when the candidate had already cleared the written exam and interview?
Held:
The Court upheld the termination, observing that mere academic excellence or clearing a competitive exam does not guarantee judicial competence. The probation period is crucial for testing real judicial aptitude.
Relevance to Current Order:
This case underscores that practical exposure is essential for judges. The current order mandating pre-service bar practice aims to prevent such failures at the training stage by ensuring candidates are tested in real-world legal scenarios before appointment.
3. K. Ashok Reddy v. Government of India (1994) Supp (1) SCC 76
Facts:
A PIL was filed challenging the appointment of advocates as High Court judges under Article 217, contending that only district judges or judicial officers should be eligible due to their experience within the system.
Legal Issue:
Can the government appoint practicing advocates directly as High Court judges under the Constitution?
Held:
The Court held that practicing advocates are equally eligible for appointment as judges and that litigation experience offers valuable insight into judicial work. The Bench emphasized that practical courtroom exposure equips advocates with unique skills for judging.
Relevance to Current Order:
Though not directly about lower judiciary, this case reinforces the constitutional legitimacy of valuing bar experience in judicial appointments. The logic applies similarly to entry-level judges—who must be familiar with the advocate’s perspective before they sit on the bench.
4. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766
Facts:
Indira Jaising, a senior advocate, challenged the method of appointing senior advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act and claimed it lacked transparency and was biased.
Legal Issue:
Should there be objective, merit-based criteria to recognize professional excellence in the legal field?
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for clear benchmarks of legal skill, ethics, and courtroom conduct for such designations. It laid down a points-based system assessing litigation experience, publications, pro bono work, etc.
Relevance to Current Order:
This case supports the broader principle that real-world legal experience must be an evaluative standard, whether for senior advocates or aspiring judges. Judicial service, being far more critical, deserves no less scrutiny.
5. V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176
Facts:
The Bar Council of India introduced a rule requiring practical training and an apprenticeship under a senior advocate before a law graduate could enroll as an advocate. The rule was challenged as ultra vires.
Legal Issue:
Can the Bar Council mandate a pre-enrollment training period for law graduates?
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down the rule, stating that once a student earns an LL.B. degree from a recognized university, he/she is entitled to enroll as an advocate.
Relevance to Current Order:
Although this case initially seems contradictory, the key difference is post-enrollment vs pre-service. The present Supreme Court order does not restrict entry into the Bar, but merely requires a couple of years of experience at the Bar before being eligible to become a judge.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s proposal to mandate three years of practice before appearing for the judiciary exam stands at a critical intersection of idealism and pragmatism. While its intent to elevate judicial quality is noble and much needed, its implementation must be equitable and considerate of India’s vast socio-economic disparities.
To strike a balance, the government may consider:
Allowing practice in legal aid cells, NGO litigation, or internships as substitutes.
Offering stipends to young advocates during the mandatory practice phase.
Creating an All India Judicial Services with structured entry, like IAS, ensuring equal opportunity.
Ultimately, our judiciary must evolve—but not at the cost of excluding voices it needs the most: young, diverse, and committed minds from every corner of India.
FAQS
❓ Is the 3-year practice rule final and binding?
As of now, it is a Supreme Court recommendation and not yet enforced nationwide, but several states are considering implementation.
❓ Can I count internships or moot court experience as practice?
Currently, only actual bar practice (enrolled advocate) is considered valid unless rules are specifically relaxed by the respective state PSC or High Court.
❓ What if I come from a non-privileged background?
You can seek support through legal aid internships, pro bono litigation, or work with NGOs. However, financial challenges are real and need addressing via legal education reforms.
❓ How will this affect judiciary coaching institutes?
They may need to revamp curricula to include courtroom exposure, internships, and post-practice preparation modules.
❓ Is this applicable to higher judicial services (HJS) too?
No—HJS already requires 7+ years of practice. This rule is aimed at lower judiciary entry-level posts (civil judge/junior division).
