The Supreme Court of India witnessed a split among judges over the mandatory three-year bar-practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointments. While some stressed courtroom experience to counter coaching-centre influence, others warned the rule may exclude talented young law graduates.
The Supreme Court saw a clear split among its judges during proceedings over the mandatory three-year bar-practice requirement for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judges (Junior Division).
While some members of the Bench stressed the importance of practical courtroom experience to counter the influence of “coaching centers,” others warned that a rigid eligibility rule could exclude talented young graduates.
The Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Augustine George Masih was considering how to implement its May 20, 2025 decision that reinstated the three-year practice condition.
To prevent candidates from being unfairly shut out during the transition, the Court ordered all High Courts and States to extend deadlines for currently advertised judicial posts to April 30, 2026.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar put forward four structured options to ease the transition:
- Uniform retention: Keep the three-year rule unchanged.
- Special accommodations: Permit women and persons with disabilities (PwD) to sit for exams without having completed three years at the bar, provided they finish the remaining practice period after passing the exam but before formal training; alternatively, reduce their requirement to two years.
- Phase-in approach: Implement a staggered rollout beginning with zero years in 2026 and increasing annually until the full three-year requirement applies in 2029.
- Accessibility measures: Specific proposals for PwD candidates, including lower qualifying thresholds, age relaxations, and better enforcement of the RPwD Act.
The hearing revealed a philosophical divide. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, a member of the 2025 majority that restored the rule, defended the requirement vigorously.
Rejecting suggestions that the rule drives away top graduates from institutions such as NLSIU Bangalore, Justice Chandran said,
“I have been a Chief Justice. I have been a senior judge. The entire thing is about coaching centres. We have interviewed the judges,”
He noted that many judges had followed the “hard road” of practice before elevation.
CJI Surya Kant, however, voiced concern about the long-term quality of the judiciary if exceptional younger candidates are overlooked.
The CJI remarked,
“Today, if you don’t pick up meritorious people, then God knows what people will you have for another 20-40 years,”
He questioned whether three years of “passive courtroom presence” necessarily produces better judges and floated a compromise, the CJI remarked,
“After one year practice, one year can also be a training year and then probation starts. That can also be the view.”
According to the Amicus, seven of the twelve High Courts that submitted affidavits including those of Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, and Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh favored retaining the three-year requirement across the board.
The Delhi High Court committee warned that granting exemptions to a specific group could prompt a cascade of similar demands.
The J&K High Court committee maintained that the rule concerns “eligibility” rather than “suitability” and therefore should not be diluted. Only the Tripura High Court committee recommended scrapping the requirement for certain categories.
The three-year practice condition had been removed in 2002 following the Shetty Commission’s recommendations but was reinstated by the May 20, 2025 judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, representing aspirants, argued that the requirement is only loosely connected to adjudicatory ability and raises the average age of entry to the judiciary to around twenty-nine.
The Supreme Court will resume the hearing next week to settle the implementation modalities.
Earlier, On February 10, 2026, the Supreme Court permitted the review petitions to be heard in open court, deviating from the standard practice of resolving review cases in chambers without oral arguments. Notices were issued to the States and High Courts.
During the hearing last month, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) remarked that the three-year rule was “disproportionately affecting women candidates.”
In response to the Court’s request for input, several High Courts expressed their support for maintaining this condition, while others advocated for a relaxation of the requirement for candidates with disabilities.
Law colleges have proposed expanding the definition of “practice at the Bar” to encompass various types of legal experience.
Case Title: Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters