Author: Harleen Kaur, D. Y. Patil Law College
To the Point
The levying of a three- year minimum practice rule before appearing for Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations has sparked nation-wide controversy. The proponents of this decision hold that a judge’s qualification is incomplete without familiarity with courtroom experience. The critics however believe that it is nothing but an exclusionary hurdle in the way of young aspirants.
Abstract
“This article evaluates the merits and limitations of the judgment, with a critical examination of the constitutional validity and practical implications of the three-year legal practice requirement for entry into the judicial services in India. While aiming to enhance quality of judges, the rule scrutinizes equality, access, and its justifications.
Legal jargon
A bench comprising of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice A.J. Masih and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced the verdict in the current case. The following judgement reinstated the then overruled law of 2002 due to concerns about the lack of experience in the past years. The three-judge bench has perused this issue that was first dealt with in the 1991 Verdict viz. the All India Judges Association case. The three-year mandate was waived in the SC’s decision in the 2002 verdict contingent to Justice KJ Shetty Report of 1996. Eligibility for Entry- Level Civil Judges (junior division) has been amended with two conditions annexed first, that all candidates appearing for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall have worked as a lawyer for 3 years. Such practice shall be evinced through a certificate by the Principal Judge of the court appeared at or by an advocate with 10 years standing. Secondly, such three-year period shall begin from the date of the candidate’s provisional registration with the State Bar Council. This new rule shall have a prospective effect on upcoming vacancies and the current recruitment cycle shall continue as it is.
Proof
Article 223(2) states a seven-year experience requirement for district judges, be that as it may, junior division civil judges have their eligibility managed by State-level judicial service rules. The rationale behind this judgement highlights the need for professional courtroom experience to ensure quality of judiciary and uphold its integrity. Clearing an exam and getting a law degree requires rote memorization but gaining actual practical courtroom experience is what shapes a young graduate to qualify as a judge in the right sense. While the judgement does uphold experiential learning, it simultaneously raises concerns about certain issues. It undoubtedly reduces the talent pool in the field as it eliminates candidates with disadvantageous backgrounds or poor financial conditions. Just because a candidate spends 3 years gaining courtroom experience doesn’t necessarily guarantee quality of judiciary as this judgement envisions. It is unreasonable to expect an individual engaged in full-time litigation practice for three years—devoting substantial effort toward professional expertise—to simultaneously prepare for and excel in one of the most competitive examinations in the country.
But the other side of the coin is that this verdict, if adopted could also turn out to spark talent and actual perseverance at the bench. Judges with advocacy backgrounds undoubtedly understand litigants and the nuances of courtroom procedure better, facilitating the efficient administration of justice.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking three-year practice to be made mandatory for aspirants arguing that judges without practical experience are found incapable of handling crucial matters leading to disposition of cases in subordinate courts.
While the BCI’s proposal sought to enhance the competence of judiciary, it has likewise given rise to debates regarding the accessibility of a judicial career.
Several High courts including MP Allahabad and Calcutta have supported the idea and made amends accordingly.
Case Laws
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2025)
2025 INSC 735 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(3)[15]
Court adjudged that candidates must have practiced as an advocate or law clerk for three years to qualify for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) position. This move aims to ensure that judicial officers possess practical courtroom experience before assuming their roles. The bench emphasized that judges are required to adjudicate matters involving life, liberty, and property from day one. Therefore, prior legal practice is crucial in familiarizing them with the real-world functioning of courts and justice delivery.
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002)
(2002) 5 BOM CR 242
This case relaxed the mandatory practice condition originally established in the 1992 verdict. It allowed fresh law graduates to appear for judiciary exams, with its belief in the idea that judicial academies would provide enough training post- recruitment.
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993)
AIR1993SC2493
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that in some states the qualification for Civil Judge- cum- Magistrate First Class is three years’ practice as a lawyer whereas other states have altogether waived this condition and just a law degree gets judicial officers recruited at the bench. The appointment of raw graduates as judicial officers has been unsuccessful and considering the seriousness of the duty of a judge. Seats with such vital powers occupied by fresh graduates is undesirable and neither shrewd.
Conclusion
The rule seeks to bridge the gap between scholastic achievement and the practical exigencies of adjudication. Its shifts the focus of the Judicial System from theoretical proficiency to pragmatic application into tangible contingencies. Sure, it holds a mighty challenge for future judges but it can’t be denied that it acts as a quality filter to solve issues of the system at its core. Much like other consequential enactments, this measure is subject to scrutiny owing to its potential implications and deficiencies.
FAQS
What was the current enrollment procedure for Civil Judge- Junior Division?
Before this judgement came in question, candidates could apply for Civil Judge- J.D. positions even without three-year legal experience. The recruitment process for these positions included Preliminary exam, Main Exam and the Interview round to access legal acumen and suitability for the judicial system. The candidate was required to possess a Bachelor’s degree in Law (LL.B.) from a recognized university.
How can this decision affect the final year law students?
Final year law students aspiring to attempt the judiciary examination must focus on acquiring hands-on legal experience as early as possible through internships and legal exposure. They must head towards this decision as an opportunity and focus on long term growth. This impliedly comprises getting registered at the Bar as soon as you graduate.
When does the three- year practice period start for a fresh law graduate?
After having their LL.B. degree in hand, and getting registered under the bar by clearing for the AIBE exam, the three -year practice period will be counted. Time spent working as a law clerk or judicial intern will also count towards this period. Such practice will be verified by a certificate obtained from Principal Judicial officer or an Advocate having experience of more than 10 years. Resolution no. 160/2009 passed by the Bar Council of India clarified that Practice period is not suspended by pursuing full-time LL.M.
To which positions in judicial offices does this rule apply?
Court has made it unequivocally clear that this mandate shall apply prospectively. The three-year practice requirement doesn’t apply to examinations where the selection process has already started as it stands. It shall only apply from the next recruitment cycle.
Why did the need for such a rule arise in the first place?
“Judges, from the very first day of service, are required to adjudicate upon matters involving life, liberty, property, and fundamental rights. These responsibilities require more than academic excellence—they demand practical understanding, exposure to court proceedings, and the maturity that comes from active legal practice.”
