Author- Sakshi Patil, Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur
Abstract
This article talks about the new rule that requires law graduates to have three years of legal practice before they can appear for the judicial service exam. While the rule aims to improve the quality of judges by giving them real-life court experience, it also creates problems for many young aspirants. It can delay their career and cause financial and family pressure. The article explains both the good and bad sides of this rule and suggests some changes — like reducing the practice period, giving proper training, helping women candidates, and counting internships during law school. These suggestions try to make the system fair for students while still keeping the quality of the judiciary strong.
Introduction
The case of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India, decided on 20 May 2025, reinstated the mandatory three-year practice requirement for entry into the civil judge cadre. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered the judgment with a positive intent—to improve the quality of the justice delivery system by emphasizing the need to appoint experienced, well-learned individuals with prior exposure to legal proceedings—the decision has nonetheless shattered the dreams of thousands of judicial aspirants due to various critical concerns. As a result, mixed reactions have emerged from law students, judicial aspirants, judges, and legal practitioners alike.
Legal framework
This decision is based on Article 233(2) of Indian Constitution.
Article 233(2) – Indian Constitution
“(2) A person not already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed a district judge if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the High Court for appointment.”
Article 233(2) was interpreted in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025) case to mean that judicial officers must have prior practical experience—which led to reviving the 3-year legal practice requirement for entry-level civil judges (even though they’re not District Judges yet, Article 233 still forms the basis of eligibility interpretation).
Case laws
All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(1993)4 SCC 288]
The Supreme Court stated that candidates entering into judiciary must have prior legal experience. It suggested that fresh law graduates should not be directly appointed as judicial officers and proposed that a minimum of three years of legal practice be required before entry into judicial service. This recommendation aimed to ensure greater professional competence, maturity, and understanding of courtroom procedures among new judges. Although not legally binding at the time, this observation laid the groundwork for future judicial interpretations that eventually led to the mandatory three-year practice rule under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
“Access to justice cannot be ensured unless there is an efficient, trained, and properly remunerated judicial cadre. Judiciary must not be treated as a poor cousin of the executive. A sound judicial system is essential for the sustenance of democracy.”
2)All India Judges Association & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: (2025) INSC 735; Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2025
Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine G. Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Honble supreme court in its judgement stated that,
“We are of the considered view that the earlier position requiring a minimum of three years’ experience at the Bar before a person is eligible to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination should be restored. The exposure to the court system, understanding of procedural nuances, and development of advocacy skills are critical for assuming judicial responsibilities.”
“Accordingly, we direct that all States and High Courts shall ensure that henceforth, eligibility to appear in the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall be confined to candidates who have practiced for a minimum of three years as an Advocate, as mandated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution, read with the spirit of our earlier directions in the All India Judges’ cases.”
“This direction shall be applicable prospectively, and not affect ongoing selection processes that have already commenced.”
Reform Perspective of decision
1. Enhanced Quality of Judicial Decisions
Judges with legal practice have a better understanding of laws and real-life cases. This helps them make well-reasoned and fair decisions.
2. Faster and Clearer Judicial Proceedings
Experienced judges already know court procedures, so they handle cases smoothly. This reduces confusion and saves time during hearings.
3. Improved Accuracy in Delivering Justice
Judges who’ve worked as lawyers are more careful and confident. They are less likely to make mistakes and more likely to give fair judgments.
4. Stronger and More Efficient Judicial System
Skilled judges help the court system run better. This leads to quicker case disposal and improves the overall functioning of courts.
5. Increased Public Trust in the Judiciary
When judges have practical knowledge, people feel more confident in their decisions. This enhance public trust in Judiciary and democratic system.
6. Motivation for Serious and Dedicated Aspirants Only
The rule will ensure that only hardworking and truly interested candidates apply. It stops those who see it as an easy or backup option.
7. Bridging the Gap Between Bar and Bench
Judges who were once lawyers understand the lawyer’s role and challenges. This creates mutual respect and better coordination in court.
8. Practical Training Ground for Future Judges
Courtroom experience helps future judges learn how to handle real situations, people, and cases—things that can’t be learned from books alone.
Roadblock Perspective
Financial Burden on Economically Weaker Aspirants
Many students from poor backgrounds struggle to support themselves even during law school. Expecting them to wait another 3 years without guaranteed income adds extra pressure and can discourage them from pursuing the judiciary.
Pressure to Become Financially Independent After Law School
After spending 5 years in legal education, there is strong pressure from family and society to start earning. The 3-year delay before becoming eligible for a stable judicial job can seem too long and uncertain.
Marriage Pressure on Female Aspirants
Many female candidates face early marriage expectations after graduation. Delaying entry into the judiciary by 3 years may reduce their chances of appearing for exams, leading to lower female representation on the bench.
Risk of Forged Experience Certificates
There is no foolproof way to check whether a candidate has genuinely practiced law for 3 years. Some may misuse the rule by submitting false documents or using connections to create fake experience, defeating the purpose of the reform.
Loss of Talented Candidates to Legal Practice
Bright and capable students might lose interest in waiting and start focusing fully on legal practice. Once they build a career there, they may not return to judicial services, causing a loss of sharp legal minds in the judiciary.
Work-Study Balance Becomes Difficult
Managing court work while also preparing for highly competitive judicial exams is very challenging. Not all aspirants get time, support, or guidance to balance both, which could demotivate or exhaust them.
7. Gap from Academic Learning and Judicial Syllabus
Three years of practice often pulls aspirants away from regular study. Once disconnected from the syllabus, it becomes harder to restart intense preparation and remember vast legal theory, bare acts, and case laws.
8. No Guarantee of Quality Improvement
Just working for three years as a lawyer does not automatically make someone a better judge. Practical experience can vary greatly, and some may not even get proper exposure during those years.
9. Unequal Opportunities Across India
Not all regions have equal access to good court practice or mentorship. Aspirants from rural or small towns may struggle to get meaningful experience, putting them at a disadvantage compared to urban candidates.
Analysis of a decision
It’s true that judges should have real experience in courts. This helps them understand the system better and improves the quality of justice. But at the same time, the new rule requiring 3 years of legal practice before appearing for the judicial exam can be too long for many fresh law graduates.
Young aspirants in their 20s face many challenges — financial pressure, family expectations, and career confusion. Because of the long waiting period, many may give up their dream of becoming a judge and choose other jobs in the legal field.
After looking at both the good and bad sides of this rule, here are some suggestions that can make the system better and more balanced:
Reduce the practice period from 3 years to 1 year
One year of practice is enough to learn the basics of court work, client handling, and legal procedures. After this, proper training in judicial academies can further prepare candidates to become good judges.
Increase training for fresh law graduates
Instead of forcing all candidates to wait for years, those who clear the exam soon after law school can be given longer training in judicial academies. This training can include court visits, judgment writing, and mock trials to give them practical knowledge.
Give relaxation in practice period for women
Women face added pressure from society and family, especially related to marriage and caregiving. A strict 3-year rule may stop many capable women from pursuing judicial services. So, the system should allow some relaxation or flexibility for women candidates.
Make stipend for junior lawyers compulsory
Many young law graduates don’t earn anything during their early practice. To make the profession more supportive, senior advocates should be required to pay a stipend to juniors and interns. This will help aspirants support themselves financially during the practice period.
Give more court exposure during law school
Law students should get more practical training while studying — like court visits, moot courts, internships, and legal aid work. This way, they learn about the legal system early and are better prepared by the time they graduate.
Count internships during law school as part of practice
Internships under lawyers, judges, or legal organizations during law school should be counted as practical experience. These internships can be verified through certificates, and this can reduce the extra burden after graduation.
Conclusion
The three-year practice rule for judicial service aims to improve the judiciary by ensuring judges have real-world experience. However, this rule can become a major hurdle for young and deserving law graduates, especially those facing financial, family, or social pressures. To make the system more fair and balanced, reforms like reducing the practice period, extending training, supporting women candidates, and recognizing internships should be considered. These changes can help maintain the quality of judges while also supporting the dreams of thousands of dedicated aspirants.
FAQs
Why was the 3-year legal practice rule introduced for judicial services?
The rule was introduced to ensure that candidates have real-life court experience before becoming judges. It aims to improve the quality, maturity, and practical understanding of those entering the judiciary.
Does the 3-year rule apply to all states in India?
Yes, after the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the 3-year mandatory practice requirement is applicable across India for judicial services, including Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts.
Can internships during law school be counted as part of the 3-year experience?
Currently, law school internships are not officially counted. However, many legal experts and students have proposed that such internships should be considered to ease the burden on fresh graduates.
Has anyone challenged this 3-year practice rule in court?
Yes, several petitions were filed challenging this decision.
References
Books
M.P. Jain – Indian Constitutional Law
For detailed interpretation of Article 233 and judicial appointments.
V.N. Shukla – Constitution of India
Offers commentary on judicial independence and Article 233(2).
Websites
LiveLaw.in
For news reports and case summaries on All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025)
https://www.livelaw.in
Bar & Bench
For updates on judicial reforms and legal debates.
https://www.barandbench.com
Indian Kanoon
For full text of Supreme Court judgments, including those cited.
https://www.indiankanoon.org
4.The Hindu / Times of India Legal Section
For media coverage on the impact of the 3-year rule and public reactions.
https://www.thehindu.com
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
