Should fresh law graduates become judges without courtroom experience? The Supreme Court now says no—mandating 3 years of legal practice before taking judicial exams.
Exploring the Top Court’s Latest Judgment and Its Wider Implications.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a significant and closely watched ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recently reinstated the requirement that candidates aspiring to become Civil Judges (Junior Division) must possess a minimum of three years of legal practice or experience working as a law clerk with any judge or judicial officer before they are eligible to appear for the judicial services examinations.
This landmark decision, delivered by the full bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K.V. Chandran in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025 INSC 735), marks a clear departure from the Court’s earlier stance in the 2002 ‘Third AIJA Case’.
In that judgment, the practice requirement had been waived based on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission—the First National Judicial Pay Commission—established in March 1996 under the Chairmanship of Justice K.J. Shetty to examine the service conditions and salary structure of judicial officers in the country.
The Court ruled that the three-year period of practice would be counted from the date of provisional enrolment with the State Bar Council, not from the date of passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE).
The Core Debate: Practice vs. Direct Entry
At the heart of this new judgment lies a central question:
Should a Civil Judge begin their judicial career immediately after completing a law degree, or should they first gain courtroom experience?
For over two decades, the judiciary leaned toward direct entry.
However, after receiving substantial feedback from High Courts across India, legal professionals, and administrative stakeholders, the Supreme Court has revisited this issue and concluded that reinstating a three-year experience requirement better serves the integrity and efficiency of the justice system.
Real-World Concerns from the High Courts
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is rooted in practical concerns. Many High Courts, in their affidavits submitted to the Court, pointed out systemic challenges stemming from the appointment of fresh law graduates to judicial posts.
ALSO READ: Will AI Replace Lawyers? The Future of AI in Law and Legal Practice
According to the majority of High Courts, young recruits without courtroom experience often lacked maturity, procedural knowledge, and people-management skills critical for judicial responsibilities.
Several instances were cited where newly appointed judges, although academically qualified, struggled with courtroom decorum, management, and even interpersonal behavior—issues highlighted by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur, Uttarakhand, among others.
Notably, only the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim supported the direct entry of fresh law graduates into judicial services.
The Supreme Court emphasized that,
“Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for first-hand courtroom experience.”
This experience fosters not just legal competence but also emotional intelligence, an essential quality for judges tasked with decisions impacting life, liberty, and property from their very first day on the bench.
Constitutional Consistency
The Constitution of India also recognizes the importance of practical experience in judicial appointments. Article 233 mandates a minimum of seven years of legal practice for appointment as a District Judge.
Similarly, Articles 217 and 124 require ten years of advocacy experience for appointments to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, respectively.
The reintroduction of the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judges aligns with this constitutional principle.
Counterarguments and the Shetty Commission’s Vision
That said, the opposing viewpoint deserves thoughtful consideration. When the Shetty Commission submitted its recommendations in 1999, it advocated for removal of the practice requirement, citing the transformation in legal education—especially in five-year integrated law programs, which had become more robust and practice-oriented.
The Commission noted that many institutions required students to attend court proceedings, participate in moot courts, and complete internships as part of their academic training. It argued that intensive post-recruitment judicial training could compensate for the lack of actual courtroom experience.
The Supreme Court in its 2002 Third Judges Case accepted this view, allowing fresh law graduates to appear for judicial service examinations. The aim was to attract young, talented minds into public service early on.
Concerns Around Equity and Accessibility
There is merit to the concern that requiring three years of practice could deter talented law graduates, especially those from elite institutions like NLUs, who may choose more lucrative corporate roles over the underpaid and unpredictable initial years of litigation.
Additionally, the rule could disproportionately affect female students, marginalized communities, and those from rural backgrounds, for whom judicial services often represent a rare opportunity for stable and prestigious employment.
Another valid question is whether the three-year practice requirement guarantees quality experience. There is always the possibility that a candidate may hold an advocate’s license without ever appearing in court.
The Supreme Court acknowledged this concern and, in its 2025 ruling, mandated a certificate from an advocate with a minimum of 10 years of standing, duly endorsed by a Principal Judicial Officer, confirming the candidate’s actual practice.
For candidates practicing before High Courts or the Supreme Court, the certification must be endorsed by an officer designated by the respective court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court mandated that all successful candidates appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) must undergo at least one year of judicial training before presiding in court.
Conclusion: A Step Toward a Stronger Judiciary
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to restore the three-year legal practice requirement is a balanced and considered step aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of India’s subordinate judiciary.
While it may initially appear as a setback for some young aspirants, it ultimately promises a more experienced, emotionally intelligent, and better-equipped judicial workforce.
This ruling reinforces a vital principle: Wisdom in law is not solely taught in classrooms—it is earned through real-world experience, shaped in courtrooms, and refined through the responsibility of delivering justice.
References
- 2025 INSC 735
- Third Judges Case (2002)
- Shetty Commission Report
- The Constitution of India
- 14th Law Commission Report
- 117th Law Commission Report
- SCC Online
- The Hindu (30.05.2025)
CASE TITLE:
All India Judges Association v. Union of India
(W.P. (C) No. 1022/1989)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Legal Practice
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
