Author: Jeswika Soumyashri A.V, School of Law, Christ University
To the Point
The eligibility criteria to take the Judiciary exams was revised on May 20, 2025. The Supreme Court of India ruled that in order to present in court, advocates and clerks must have at least three years of experience. The three-year practice rule was proposed by multiple high courts for the prospective judges to have practical, courtroom experience and a clear understanding of the legal procedures. The Bar Council of India has complied with the judgement stating that the mandate shall promote effectiveness and accountability in the judiciary. This rule means that fresh graduates after their 5 year or 3 year LLB degrees shall not directly eligible to write the Judiciary exams for the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Supreme court has ordered all the state government to make necessary changes to implement the 3 year practice rule in their respective states.
Abstract
A significant shift in the selection of Indian judges has been brought about by the new regulation requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice prior to sitting for the judicial service examination. In the past, law graduates without any prior court experience may take the test immediately after earning their degree. However, the Supreme Court has now made it plain that practicing law first is crucial in the 2025 case All India Judges Association v. Union of India. According to the Court, judges must have practical legal knowledge in order to render just verdicts and comprehend how the legal system functions in reality. By ensuring that judges possess more than just academic knowledge, this rule aims to enhance their quality. A person is better prepared to sit as a judge when they spend time arguing in court, interacting with clients, and learning firsthand how the legal system operates. It keeps them independent, fair, and grounded. However, many recent law graduates may also face difficulties as a result of this rule, particularly those from low-income families or small towns. Since beginning attorneys typically don’t make much money, they might struggle to make ends meet during their three years of practice. This might deter a lot of gifted students from ever attempting to serve as judges.
Use of Legal Jargon
The eligibility criteria of the legal professionals to pursue career in the judiciary or advocacy is given in the Advocates Act, 1961. The act consists of eligibility criteria for other public examinations taken by the legal profession including the judiciary exams. The key consideration of BCI is the granting of the Certificate of Practice pursuant to the Advocates Act of 1961 permitting an advocate to appear before the courts in India. Additionally, it ensures that candidates do practical work within the courts, before making an application of being a judicial officer. This regulation mainly affects recruitment into the lower judicial system, specifically for Judicial Magistrates and Civil Judges (Junior Division). These judges are chosen by State Governments after consulting with the appropriate High Courts. Articles 233 to 237 of the Indian Constitution gives rules and regulations for the subordinate judiciary
The proof
The Supreme Court of India upheld the historic judgement of All India Judges Association v. Union of India the requirement that applicants must have at least three years of experience as advocates prior to being eligible for appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Court’s 2002 position, in which it allowed recent law graduates to sit for judicial service exams without any prior legal experience, is reversed in this ruling. The 2025 bench, which included Justices B.R. Gavai, A.G. Masih, and K. Vinod Chandran, stressed that a judge’s foundational training must include the practical application of legal principles, exposure to the courtroom, and ethical development. Academic credentials alone cannot replace these elements.
The Court ruled that professional maturity acquired through actual advocacy is essential for judicial independence and efficient adjudication, acknowledging the significance of providing judges with first-hand litigation experience. In light of this, the Court ordered all State Public Service Commissions and High Courts to include this eligibility requirement in their judicial recruitment regulations. Candidates who were already in the selection process under the prior regulations would not be disqualified. By mandating practical legal knowledge as a requirement for judicial office, this ruling not only unifies the country’s judicial selection procedure but also aims to improve the effectiveness of the lower judiciary.
Case Laws
All India Association v. Union of India
In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025) reaffirmed the principle that a minimum of three years’ practice as an advocate is mandatory before a person can be appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). This Supreme Court overruled its own judgement of relaxation for law graduates in 2002. The Court held that academic qualifications alone do not equip candidates with the maturity, ethical grounding, and legal acumen required for judicial office. It emphasized the importance of courtroom exposure and directed all State High Courts and Public Service Commissions to update their recruitment rules accordingly.
State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah
According to the Supreme Court of India, eligibility requirements are a crucial component of the hiring process and must be closely followed. The Court decided that the prescribed eligibility requirements of a recruitment notice cannot be changed or loosened at will once it has been sent out as this would go against the values of equality, justice, and openness in public employment. The Court underlined that altering eligibility requirements in the middle of the process would give candidates an unfair advantage or disadvantage, which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It was decided that hiring authorities had to abide by the regulations in effect on the day of the advertisement. This case has often been used to support the integrity of hiring practices and make sure that regulations aren’t changed to accommodate particular.
Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik
In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether Public Prosecutors could be appointed as District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. The Court stated that “The term ‘advocate’ must refer to a person who is a full-time practitioner of law, not simply a person who holds a professional degree in law.” This case is significant because the Court defined “Practice of Law,” contending that “active” practice cannot be replaced by theoretical understanding of the law or employment in “some part-time capacity” in the legal services sector. It also served as the foundation for the idea that significant legal experience is a requirement for judicial appointment.
Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College
The question of the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) jurisdiction to control legal education and enforce standards among law schools was heard by the Supreme Court of India. The case started when the BCI contested the continued acceptance of law degrees from specific universities that were purportedly in violation of established standards. The Court maintained the BCI’s authority to establish legal education requirements and to revoke recognition from colleges that do not comply with the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Sections 7 and 49. The ruling highlighted how maintaining professional standards in the legal field requires high-quality legal education. Additionally, it reaffirmed that graduates of schools not approved by the BCI would not be eligible to enroll or work as advocates. The BCI’s regulatory jurisdiction over both was upheld in this case.
Conclusion
A significant shift to the judicial recruitment practice in India is the introduction of a three-year bar practice requirement for judicial service examinations. This policy shift aims to eliminate the long-standing divide between theoretical legal education and the reality of what judges do by requiring prior practice. Reintroduced by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the policy highlights the importance of prior experience in the development of judicial independence, competence and ethical frameworks because judges are expected to be independent, be competent in their duties, and have reference points of ethical thought to rely on when the need arises. Notwithstanding the Rule promotes professional rigor, it comes with additional hurdles, especially for students from socio-economic disadvantage. Many law graduates anticipate the relative stability of government jobs, and waiting for an additional three years often without money is a barrier. In addition, the rule must be equally enforced and assessments must align across states. Recruitment rules must align, to reduce regional discrepancies and keep all candidates equally assessed.
In summary, the three-year supervised practice is a strong first step towards taking judicial quality into account for the purpose of the future. But, it needs to be carefully curated as part of balanced, inclusive, and supported regulatory project; a project which sustains both the objective of maintaining excellence whilst ensuring accessibility as well; a project that ensures the judiciary is not only more capable but representative of the society it sits in above.
FAQS
What is the 3 year practice rule?
The 3 year practice rule is mandate by the supreme court to write the judiciary exam for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to have an experience after law school graduation for the purpose of practical experience of advocates od real life courtroom procedures.
Who can write the Judiciary exam?
Any citizen of India who has a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree and is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of India through All India Bar exam with an experience of 3 years as an advocate or a legal clerk or any similar legal experience is eligible to write the judiciary exam for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Who introduced this rule and why?
The 3 year practice rule was first introduced in the year 1993 which was then relaxed in the year 2002. The Bar Council of India reintroduced the rule in 2025 in All India Association v. Union of India case.
Is this rule applicable to all the states in India?
This 3 year practice rule shall be applicable to all the state and local judiciary recruiting bodies. This precedent shall be treated like the other precedents of the Supreme Court and the states must adhere to the same.
Are the judicial exams open to recent law graduates?
No, the fresh law graduates cannot apply for the exams but those students who are graduated and are preparing for the exams are eligible for the judiciary exams since the rule is expected to have a prospective effect. Therefore, those eligible under the previous rule shall be eligible to write the judiciary exams.
References
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15341/1/advocate_1961.pdf
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/05/20/sc-restores-3-year-practice-civil-judge-exams/
https://www.pw.live/judiciary/exams/judiciary-exam-eligibility
