Context: The Supreme Court reinstated the rule mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for applying to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts.
What Is the Three-Year Judicial Practice Mandate?
- As per the latest ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, a candidate must now have at least three years of courtroom experience before appearing for judicial service exams.
- The mandate applies to entry-level judges, reinstating the condition removed in 2002 to broaden access to judicial posts.
Why Was the Judicial Practice Requirement Reinstated?
1. Improves Judicial Preparedness
Early exposure to real courtroom scenarios builds decision-making skills and legal maturity.
Example: The Bar Council of India (2021) stated that judges without practice were often “inept and incapable” in handling matters.
2. Reflects High Court Consensus
23 out of 25 High Courts reported unsatisfactory outcomes from recruiting fresh graduates into the judiciary.
3. Addresses Training Gaps
Judicial academies often lack individual mentoring capacity and cannot simulate litigation complexities.
4. Fosters Professional Maturity
Advocates gain better emotional intelligence and legal intuition through active litigation.
Challenges Associated with the Three-Year Mandate
1. Exclusion of Marginalized Aspirants
Women and first-generation lawyers may struggle to sustain three years in litigation due to socio-economic or familial constraints.
Example: NFHS data shows average female marriage age is 19.2, creating early-career conflicts for female law graduates.
2. Unequal Playing Field in Litigation
Early-stage advocates, especially women, often face hostile work conditions, harassment, and lack of mentorship in court corridors.
3. Risk of Tokenistic Practice
Without verification norms, the three-year judicial practice mandate may become a formality rather than a meaningful experience.
4. Reduced Diversity in Judiciary
This additional hurdle may deter young, capable women and others from marginalized communities from even attempting judicial entry.
5. Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Concerns
The mandate, as per Article 234, should be determined by State executives in consultation with High Courts, not unilaterally by the Supreme Court.
Significance of the Three-Year Practice Mandate
1. Enhances Quality of Judgments
Judges with courtroom experience are more adept at managing procedural complexities and ensuring fair trials.
2. Bridges Theory-Practice Divide
This move attempts to build a professionally competent Bench, not just a theoretically sound one.
3. Aligns with Global Best Practices
Most developed judicial systems expect prior legal experience before assuming judicial office. The three-year judicial practice mandate brings India closer to this global standard.
Conclusion
The three-year practice mandate reflects a desire to build a judiciary with practical legal insight and emotional maturity. However, without addressing socio-economic barriers and structural inequalities, it risks narrowing entry for many deserving candidates. Judicial reform must strike a balance between quality and inclusivity, rigour and representation.
