Submissions before the Supreme Court of India show diverse views on the three-year practice rule. Many universities and legal experts argue it fails to improve judicial competence and instead blocks talented graduates from entering the judiciary, strengthening calls for reconsideration or abolition.
NEW DELHI: The ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court of India in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India , Jaideep Subudhi & Others Vs Union of India and other related review petitions have reignited an important debate regarding the eligibility criteria for entry into the lower judiciary. At the center of the controversy is the requirement that candidates must have completed three years of practice at the Bar before they are eligible to appear for the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Submissions placed before the Court by various High Courts and law universities reveal a wide spectrum of views on this issue. However, a significant number of academic institutions and legal scholars have expressed reservations about the rigid three-year practice mandate. Many of them argue that the rule, in its present form, does not necessarily enhance judicial competence and may instead create barriers that prevent talented graduates from entering the judiciary. Their responses collectively present a compelling case for reconsidering or even abolishing the requirement.
This article examines the arguments advanced by several institutions that oppose the rule and highlights why reform of the three-year practice condition has become an urgent necessity.
The Background of the Three-Year Practice Requirement
The requirement that aspiring judicial officers must first spend a minimum of three years practicing as advocates was introduced with the intention of ensuring that newly appointed judges possess practical courtroom experience.
The underlying assumption has been that exposure to litigation would help candidates understand procedural nuances, professional ethics, and courtroom conduct before they assume judicial responsibilities.
While the objective of maintaining high standards in the judiciary is widely accepted, critics argue that the rule has gradually become outdated. Over time, legal education, internship structures, and judicial training programs have evolved significantly. Many institutions now contend that professional competence can be developed through structured training programs rather than by mandating years of uncertain practice at the Bar.
Criticisms of the Rule
- Lack of Empirical Evidence Supporting the Rule
One of the primary criticisms raised against the three-year requirement is the absence of empirical data demonstrating that such experience actually produces better judges.
For instance, Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna has argued that the rule lacks a demonstrable connection with judicial competence. According to the institution, there is no evidence showing that advocates with three years of practice perform better as judges compared to fresh graduates who undergo rigorous judicial training.
The university further points out that the requirement operates as an exclusionary filter rather than a meaningful qualification. By imposing a waiting period after graduation, the rule forces many aspirants to remain in professional limbo before they can even attempt the examination.
CNLU also raised concerns about fairness for students who enrolled in law programs with the expectation that they could appear for judicial service examinations immediately after graduation. Introducing or strictly enforcing a three-year rule after they have completed their studies, the university argued, disrupts legitimate expectations and creates uncertainty in career planning.
- Economic Barriers and Social Inequality
Another recurring theme in the submissions against the rule is the economic hardship it imposes on young graduates.
Several institutions, including the Faculty of Law at Jamia Millia Islamia and NALSAR University of Law, have highlighted that the early years of litigation practice are often financially unstable. Junior advocates typically earn very little, and many rely on family support to sustain themselves during this period.
As a result, the three-year practice requirement disproportionately affects candidates from economically weaker backgrounds. Students who cannot afford to spend several years earning minimal income may be compelled to abandon their aspirations of joining the judiciary altogether.
NALSAR’s academic committee has emphasized that the rule effectively acts as an economic barrier that excludes meritorious candidates who lack financial backing. It also disproportionately impacts first-generation lawyers, women, and students from rural or marginalized communities who already face structural disadvantages in the legal profession.
The institution argues that a system intended to produce a diverse and representative judiciary should not impose eligibility conditions that indirectly limit access to those with financial privilege.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to J&K Judge Notification Without 3-Year Practice Rule: “No Impact on Old Recruitment Notices”
- The Problem of the “Waiting Period”
Many law universities have characterized the three-year rule as an unnecessary waiting period that delays entry into public service.
According to Apeejay Stya University’s School of Legal Studies, numerous students begin preparing for judicial services during their law school years. Requiring them to wait for three additional years before appearing for the examination disrupts this preparation cycle and discourages candidates who are otherwise highly motivated.
Similarly, Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli, has argued that eliminating the requirement would enable young legal minds to enter the judiciary at an earlier stage of their careers. The institution believes that the existing system wastes valuable time that could otherwise be devoted to structured training and judicial work.
- The Case for Structured Training Instead of Practice
A number of institutions have suggested that structured training programs would be a more effective method of preparing future judges.
National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal has proposed that the requirement of prior practice be removed and replaced with a one-year training period for newly appointed judicial officers. Under this model, candidates would first clear the examination and then undergo supervised training within the judicial system.
Similarly, Dharmashastra National Law University (DNLU), Jabalpur has recommended abolishing the three-year rule entirely and strengthening training programs conducted by judicial academies. According to the university, such training would provide a more systematic and consistent form of professional development than informal learning through chamber practice.
The National Forensic Sciences University in Gandhinagar has also supported the idea of replacing the pre-qualification requirement with a structured training program. The university argues that judicial excellence cannot be measured simply by the amount of time spent in private practice. Instead, competence should be developed through supervised learning, standardized training modules, and rigorous evaluation after selection.
- Addressing Concerns of Inclusivity
Another major criticism of the rule relates to its impact on inclusivity within the judiciary.
Several institutions have emphasized that the requirement disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities. Litigation practice can present significant logistical challenges for persons with disabilities due to inadequate infrastructure, accessibility barriers, and discriminatory attitudes.
National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi has suggested that the requirement be eliminated for all candidates, including persons with disabilities, and that the focus should shift to intensive training programs in areas such as court procedure, judgment writing, and case management.
Similarly, many academic submissions have argued that the rule has unintended gender implications. Women graduates may face societal or family pressures that discourage prolonged uncertainty in career paths. A mandatory practice period may therefore reduce the number of women entering the judicial service.
By removing the three-year requirement, institutions believe the judiciary could become more inclusive and accessible to diverse social groups.
- The Changing Nature of Legal Education
Critics of the rule also emphasize that legal education itself has evolved significantly over the past few decades.
Modern law programs include extensive clinical courses, internships, moot courts, and practical training modules. Many students graduate with considerable exposure to courtroom procedures and legal practice.
Some universities argue that these academic reforms have reduced the need for a mandatory practice period. Instead of relying on informal training in law chambers, they propose integrating practical skills directly into the law school curriculum and judicial training programs.
This approach would ensure that all candidates receive standardized and supervised training rather than uneven experiences depending on the chambers they join.
- International Perspectives
Globally, judicial recruitment systems vary widely, but many countries do not impose long practice requirements for entry-level judges.
In several jurisdictions, candidates enter the judiciary directly after completing their legal education and passing competitive examinations. They then undergo extensive training at judicial academies before assuming full judicial responsibilities.
Proponents of reform argue that India could adopt a similar model, where the emphasis is placed on merit-based selection and structured training rather than years of uncertain practice.
- Impact on Judicial Vacancies
Another practical concern raised in submissions is the potential impact of the rule on judicial vacancies.
India already faces a significant shortage of judges at the subordinate level. If eligibility requirements discourage candidates from appearing for judicial service examinations, vacancies may remain unfilled for longer periods.
Several institutions have warned that the three-year practice condition could inadvertently worsen the problem of judicial delays by shrinking the pool of eligible applicants.
By allowing fresh graduates to compete for these positions, the judiciary could attract a larger number of talented candidates and fill vacancies more efficiently.
Alternative Models Proposed
Instead of maintaining the current rule, institutions have proposed several alternative models:
- Post-Selection Training: Candidates clear the examination first and then undergo one or two years of rigorous training at judicial academies.
- Judicial Clerkships: Graduates work as clerks or research assistants for judges to gain practical experience before taking on judicial roles.
- Integrated Training Programs: Law schools collaborate with courts to provide structured internships and clinical courses focused on judicial work.
- Apprenticeships within the Judiciary: Selected candidates work under senior judges during a probationary period before receiving full judicial authority.
These alternatives aim to ensure that judges acquire practical knowledge while avoiding the economic and structural barriers created by mandatory practice requirements.
The Need for Judicial Reform
The debate surrounding the three-year practice rule ultimately reflects a broader question about how best to prepare future judges.
While practical experience is undoubtedly valuable, critics argue that the current system relies on an assumption that time spent in litigation automatically translates into judicial competence. However, chamber practice varies widely, and many junior advocates perform limited substantive work during their early years.
In contrast, structured training programs conducted by judicial academies could provide uniform instruction in areas such as procedural law, judicial ethics, case management, and judgment writing.
Conclusion
The submissions presented before the Supreme Court in the Bhumika Trust and Jaideep Subudhi matter reveal a growing consensus among several academic institutions that the three-year practice requirement deserves reconsideration.
Many universities believe the rule lacks empirical justification, creates economic and social barriers, and fails to reflect the realities of modern legal education. Instead of improving judicial quality, it may discourage talented graduates from pursuing careers in the judiciary.
Reforming this requirement whether by abolishing it entirely or replacing it with structured training programs could make the judicial recruitment process more inclusive, efficient, and aligned with contemporary legal education.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this issue, the outcome of these proceedings may shape the future of judicial appointments in India. A balanced approach that prioritizes merit, training, and accessibility could help ensure that the judiciary attracts the brightest legal minds while maintaining the highest standards of justice.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
