Call us now:
The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association v. Union of India has stirred a new chapter in how future judges will be selected in the country. Delivered on May 20, 2025, the ruling restores the requirement of a minimum of three years’ legal practice before a candidate can appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. This judgment reverses the 2002 decision that allowed fresh law graduates to directly enter the judiciary, and it does so with a clear intent: to improve the quality and readiness of judicial officers.
Why the Court Chose to Reinstate the Rule
The Supreme Court based its decision on input from various High Courts and state governments, many of which reported real-world problems with appointing judges straight out of law school. According to the Court, the absence of practical experience led to difficulties in court management, immature behavior, and an overall lack of preparedness in handling legal procedures and dealing with the Bar. Judges are required to make decisions affecting people’s lives, liberty, and property from day one—experience in the courtroom, even as an advocate, helps build the confidence and judgment necessary for this role.
The Thinking Behind the Rule
The judgment reflects a strong belief that lawyering is not just about knowing the law—it’s about understanding how the system works in practice. Observing court proceedings, interacting with litigants, and drafting real case files offer insights no classroom can teach. The Court emphasized that pre-service judicial training, no matter how rigorous, cannot fully replace the learning that comes from being in the trenches of legal practice.
Concerns That Deserve Attention
While the Court’s concerns are valid and well-intentioned, there are also real worries about how this rule may affect access to the judiciary, especially for bright but underprivileged students. For many young law graduates, the early years of practice are financially unstable and poorly paid. Expecting them to sustain themselves for three years before even becoming eligible for a judicial post may discourage many talented individuals from even trying.
Further, the idea that three years of practice automatically improves a person’s suitability for a judge’s role might not always hold true. Not all lawyers get equal opportunities in their early careers. A junior working in a busy metropolitan court may learn much more than someone who practices in a less active environment. Yet, both would be treated the same under this rule.
The Risk of Creating New Hurdles
There is also the question of how this rule will be applied. The requirement that the practice period be certified by a senior advocate or countersigned by a judicial officer could lead to inconsistencies and possible misuse. If not implemented carefully, it could become yet another barrier for candidates who are already struggling with unequal access to resources.
What Can Be Done Moving Forward
For this new rule to succeed in spirit and not just on paper, supportive steps must be taken. Bar Councils, law schools, and state authorities need to consider offering structured mentorships, apprenticeships, or stipends to new lawyers who intend to join the judiciary. This will ensure that practical training is not just a burden, but part of a guided path toward public service.
Additionally, uniform national training for judicial officers must be prioritized. The one- or two-year training recommended by the Supreme Court should be expanded to include practical court experience, ethical grounding, and courtroom simulations that bridge the gap between legal education and judicial duties.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to bring back the three-year practice requirement comes from a genuine concern for the quality and strength of the Indian judiciary. However, as with all well-meaning reforms, its success will depend on how it is implemented on the ground. Without adequate support, the rule could unintentionally push away the very talent it hopes to attract. To avoid this, the focus must now shift to creating a fair and inclusive system where merit and experience can truly go hand in hand.