Author: Divya Khatri, Student of B.A.LL.B. at Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana,India.
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India has recently brought back the three-year practice rule, according to which law graduates will have to do three years of legal practice to appear in the judiciary exams. Due to this decision of the supreme court, there is a debate going on whether this rule will enhance the quality of judiciary or it will act as a barrier for those who belong to the underprivileged community. Through this article, we will go into detail about its legal background, objective, case laws, arguments against and in favor of three-year rule, implications, suggestions and alternatives. This article is presented in straightforward language so that the concepts discussed can be easily understood by readers who belong to different backgrounds.
TO THE POINT
If judges decide the lives of millions of people, then isn’t it true that before becoming a judge, one should have experience of real courtroom? On May 20,2025, the Indian Supreme Court rendered a decision in reference to All India Judges’ Association and Ors v. Union of India,[ a bench Consisting of Justice K. Vinod, chief justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, ] in which it was made compulsory that the candidates who wanted to appear in the lower judiciary examination would have to practice for at least three years. This meant that fresh graduates would no longer be able to directly appear for the judiciary examination. The court gave its main reason behind this that without courtroom experience the candidates will not be able to handle the serious responsibility of a judge nor will they be able to maintain it. Some while supporting this decision also say that practical experience improves a person’s decision-making ability and others argue that this rule limit is a problem for talented students who cannot afford to practice without a stable income. Recently, a review petition has also been filed by Chandra Sen Yadav, in which it has been asked to implement this rule from 2027 so that unfair exclusion of recent graduates can be avoided.
LEGAL JARGON
The court’s decision is based on the doctrine of reasonable classification which is the most significant principle under article fourteen which allows that the government can make such a classification which is reasonable and provides a valid objective and here the classification is between fresh graduates and those who have three years of real courtroom experience. According to the court this rule is fair because it will bring real world knowledge into the judiciary. This judgement also shows the idea of judicial aptitude which is the ability of the judge to understand the case correctly and through his critical thinking give a valid judgement and only such a mature person with courtroom experience can perform his judicial duties. Courts’ earlier reports and High Courts feedback showed how the judges, without any legal practice, made poor judgments and how they often struggle with the court procedures.
THE PROOF
CASE BACKLOG IN INDIA
There are more than five crore cases pending in India. There is an urgent need for mature judges who can deliver justice in time. It is argued that a candidate with legal experience will perform better and prevent delays.
GLOBAL PRACTICES
In the USA, there are many states where a candidate must have three to five years of experience to become a judge. In England and Wales, seven years of experience is required to become a judge and if we talk about Australia, then for federal judges the judge must have five years of experience. All these examples show that India is not alone which is demanding legal practice before the appointment for the post of judge.
HIGHER JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT IN NDIA
To become a High Court Judge, ten years of legal practice is required. This shows that legal experience is required for all judicial level posts.
CASE LAWS
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. INION OF INDIA[AIR1993SC2493]
This was the first time that the court introduced a three-year rule, and the court said that maturity and experience are essential for judges.
SHETTY COMMISSION REPORT [1996]
This commission has given suggestions to remove this rule to bring young talent into the judiciary.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA [2002] 5 BOM CR 242
In this case, the Supreme Court removed the rule which allowed fresh graduates to apply.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA [2025 INSC 735]
The Supreme Court brought back its three-year rule in which it was said that the performance of the judges is poor, there is delay in judgements and the judges need practical knowledge.
CRITICISM: RESTRICTIVE OR RATIONAL
- This is a controversial judgement which puts a financial burden on the poor students. Many fresh law graduates are not able to earn well in the initial days of their practice. Many earn only Rs. 10,000 to 15,000 per month, which is not enough to live in big cities, and they cannot even support their families with that money. For many children, this is not financially possible because they cannot wait for three more years.
- The biggest impact of this policy has been on women’s education because the condition of women in India has always been deplorable and due to the implementation of the three-year practice rule, entry of women into judicial services has been further restricted.
- Students who belong to small towns or villages do not have easy access to good law chambers and without support, they lag urban candidates.
- Not all states are able to conduct judiciary exams regularly. If a candidate completes three years of practice and does not get a chance to sit for the exam because notification is not issued, it causes frustration and is also a bootless errand.
- Short training programs should be conducted for bright students so that they can be given practical knowledge.
- The definition of practice should include NGO’s legal work, law clerk jobs, or research work.
- CONCLUSION
- Three-year practice rule has been implemented in India to improve the quality of judges. India is not the only such country but there are other countries too like USA, England, Wales etc. this makes years of practical experience absolutely required for judges. This rule shows that the intent of judiciary is appreciable. well trained, confident and mature judges should be produced in India so that the quality of judiciary is enhanced and those candidates should be excluded who only memorize the laws and do not understand their practical implication, due to which they give poor judgements, but it is a barrier for bright and underprivileged students who do not have financial and social support. To make this reform successful, the government, courts, legal and other communities will have to come together and create a support system so that these rules become a path to achievement rather than a hurdle.
- FAQ
- What is the three-year practice rule for judiciary?
- This means the candidate must have three years of real courtroom experience to appear in the Judicial Services Examination.
- What is the purpose behind reimplementing this rule?
- The aim behind this action of the Supreme Court was to increase the quality of the judges and the Supreme Court saw that without practical experience the judges were struggling with the procedure and giving poor judgements.
- Does this rule apply to all states?
- Yes, a three-year rule applies to all states for appearing in the lower judiciary exams.
- What is the present procedure for enrollment of Civil Judge, Junior Division?
- • The candidate must hold a law degree from an accredited university.
- Selection process: -it includes three stages i.e. prelims, mains and interview
- Minimum three years of legal practice.
- verification, documentation and medical examination.
- Judicial training before posting.
Will clerkship be counted as experience?
Yes, if you have worked under a judge or senior advocate as a clerk for more than a year, that will also be counted.
Is there any chance of this rule being changed again?
The rule is based on the future decisions of the court, although recently a review petition has been filed in the court by Chandra Sen ji, but currently, the rule is binding and valid for three years.
SOURCES USED
All India judges ‘association v. union of India judgement.
Reports from the times of India, economic times, and Indian express.
National judicial data grid [NJDG]-Case pendency statistics.
Shetty commission reports.
Bar and bench legal discussions and interviews.
Comparative data from judiciary rules in the Uk, USA and Australia.
