Today, On 26th February, The Supreme Court raised concerns over the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service, especially its impact on women aspirants. The Chief Justice said, “No doubt practice is important, but we also have to see the impact on young talent.”
The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial service positions, particularly regarding its effects on women candidates.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice AG Masih was reviewing petitions against last year’s ruling that reinstated this requirement.
The Chief Justice remarked,
“Most important issue is regarding young girls. Now almost 60% of judicial officers are girls, so that is very important to us. Because of this condition… No doubt practice is important, but we also have to see the impact on young talent. This creates a vacuum for 3 years.”
He emphasized that women are concerned about meeting this practice condition due to societal expectations surrounding marriage and family life.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed concerns regarding the social challenges faced by women candidates, noting that these issues might disproportionately impact those aspiring to become judicial officers.
Adding that many may struggle to meet the necessary years of practice due to familial and societal expectations, including marriage and relocation, he remarked,
“Girls are really shaken. Girls are the potential of our merit. Because of this condition, there is fear that they will never be able to complete because the family will not allow to complete. They will get married, get settled here and there… More of the social issues,”
This observation was made during the review of petitions seeking to reconsider a previous ruling that reinstated the requirement for three years of advocacy practice for candidates applying for civil judge positions (junior division).
The Chief Justice expressed concerns regarding the pool of qualified candidates,
“We have to improve the system. No doubt. Practice is a very important component of judicial service. But how to introduce it in such a manner that it does not deprive us from the consideration of meritorious candidates, that it does not create a vacuum of three years. Situation is like this now, if you go for recruitment today, you do not have any fresh pass out. So who are the only candidates available? Those who tried their luck and did not succeed. Or those who never tried and want to take a chance now,”
The Court noted that most High Courts have provided their feedback on the matter as directed earlier, while the remaining High Courts have been instructed to submit their responses by March 9, 2026. The case will be listed for further consideration shortly thereafter at 2 PM.
The review challenges the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment, which restored the three-year practice requirement for eligibility to entry-level judicial roles.
This ruling reinstated a pre-2002 standard, arguing that prior courtroom experience is vital for ensuring the competence and maturity of trial court judges.
One review petition, submitted by Advocate Chandra Sen Yadav, claims that the judgment failed to consider critical points raised by the Shetty Commission, which had recommended eliminating the mandatory practice requirement.
The petitioner asserts that law degree programs already include court visits and internships, and judicial officers undergo structured training before they take office, making the three-year litigation requirement unnecessary.
The petition also contends that the ruling overly relied on affidavits from certain High Courts and State Governments in favor of reinstating the practice requirement, while not adequately considering opposing opinions from Nagaland, Tripura, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Chhattisgarh.
Filed through Advocate on Record Kunal Yadav, the petition emphasizes that the Supreme Court overlooked important recommendations from the Shetty Commission made in 1999 and previously supported in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, which advocated for comprehensive training for recent graduates rather than a stringent practice mandate. It asserts that there is a lack of empirical data or objective criteria indicating that judges with less than three years of practice perform poorly.
The petition highlights the success of many young judges who were appointed without extensive Bar experience and argues, referencing State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), that there is no rational basis for treating fresh graduates differently from those with three years of practice.
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
