The Supreme Court has invited feedback from High Courts, NLUs, and law schools on the mandatory 3-year legal practice requirement for judicial services, following concerns that the rule disproportionately impacts disabled law graduates seeking entry-level judgeships.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reopened a crucial debate surrounding the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for entry into judicial services, leading to a possible re-examination of its earlier stance.
In a crucial development, the Court has invited feedback from all High Courts, National Law Universities (NLUs), and law schools across the country, reflecting the judiciary’s willingness to adopt a consultative and inclusive approach.
The proceedings arose from an application filed by Bhumika Trust, which sought an exemption from the practice requirement for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) appearing for judicial service examinations.
The petitioner argued that specially-abled law graduates face systemic barriers in gaining legal practice experience. Many advocates and chambers, it was submitted, are reluctant to engage PwDs, thereby making the three-year practice requirement disproportionately burdensome and discriminatory for this group.
Supreme Court’s Response
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi expressed reservations about granting category-specific exemptions. The Court firmly stated that:
“Any such enabling criterion should be the same for all law graduates.”
The bench cautioned that creating special carve-outs might unintentionally reinforce a sense of inferiority among beneficiaries once they enter judicial service. It also rejected a piecemeal approach to eligibility rules, stressing the importance of uniformity and consistency across states.
Although the petitioner cited Madhya Pradesh, where exemptions were reportedly allowed, the Court reiterated that fragmented rules across jurisdictions would lead to unfairness and inconsistency in judicial recruitment.
Importantly, the Supreme Court acknowledged the widespread disappointment and demoralisation among young law graduates following the 2023 judgment. Recognising the broader implications of the policy, the bench observed:
“We find that young students are disappointed and demoralised as well with this decision.”
In response, the Court decided to initiate a nationwide consultative process, directing all High Courts to place the matter before their respective Chief Justices and inviting suggestions from NLUs and other law schools within four weeks.
The Court clarified that if any variation to the existing rule is deemed necessary, it would apply uniformly to all law graduates, rather than selectively.
Background
The Supreme Court’s judgment dated May 20, 2023, delivered by a bench headed by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial service examinations. The Court mandated a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar, relying on inputs from almost all High Courts.
Importantly, the Court held that this rule will not affect ongoing recruitment processes. It will apply only to future appointments, once the next selection cycle begins.
The Court observed:
“We hold that the three-year minimum practice requirement to appear for the civil judges (junior division) examination is restored.”
Those inputs indicated that appointing fresh graduates as judges had not yielded satisfactory results. Several recruits reportedly exhibited behavioural, temperamental, and maturity-related issues, undermining the effectiveness of judicial administration. The Court emphasised that courtroom exposure, interaction with litigants, and handling briefs are essential to inculcate judicial sensitivity, decision-making clarity, and professional maturity.