SU P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1022/1989 ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. (Petitioner(s)) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Respondent(s))
Devesh Sharma, Author
Introduction
“I can speak from experience that young, idealistic and extremely talented youth aspire to be adjudicators. Telling them to park the aspiration for 3 years and enter practice instead may hurt this aspiration more than it helps their ability to adjudicate. It may not be accurate to equate young judges with fresh law graduates. We are missing that they undergo extensive training before actually assuming charge which is long and extensive. They get to sit with judges right from magistrates to the High Court. I can say from experience, this year-long process is not only thorough but life changing. We may always have conversations about ways in which the training may be improved, and the judicial academies are already working in that direction.”[1]
-Bharat Chugh (Independent Legal Practitioner, Former Judge)
Recently, the Supreme Court of India has taken the stand that anyone who sits for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams across the country, ought to have at least three years professional experience as a practicing advocate.
This is an order issued by a three-judge Bench of the Court, with the final decree issued on May 20 by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, after hearing the matter on January 28 of this year. The reason for this was to address several High Courts who expressed concern that newly graduated lawyers lack actual time in a courtroom, and therefore they were not prepared to take on judicial responsibilities.[2]
The Supreme Court has since ruled that all State Governments must amend their rules in order to make three years of actual practice mandatory before taking the civil judge exam. That practice must be verified by a lawyer of at least ten years. The court explained that practice as a law clerk to a Judge shall count toward the three years of experience, too. Also, all new judges must complete one year of training before being able to hear their own cases in court.
Most importantly, the court indicated that this rule shall only apply as a new rule for the next recruitment cycle, and shall not take effect for the selection processes that are ongoing. Also, the three years of practice will be calculated from the date of provisional enrolment as a lawyer – not the date somebody clears the All-India Bar Exam (AIBE).[3]
Background of the issue
The issue of whether judicial appointments should have legal experience has a long history going back to 1958 when the 14th Law Commission of India led by M.C. Setalvad brought this matter up for discussion. The Commission recommended that for candidates to appear for the lower judiciary examinations, they should have at least three to five years of practice in law and that the examination should test their practical experience (drafting, evaluation of evidence, and drafting judgements). Instead, many judicial examinations still test for knowledge and memory of law using over-reliance on theoretical questions, while most legal analysis, and equally so, most court work is based on practical knowledge of law and the analysis of evidence.[4]
The Commission recommended the creation of an All-India Judicial Services (AIJS) for recruitment to the higher judiciary, which would have been an independent body to appoint judges through a centralized exam. This new exam recruited bright new law graduates before their exposure to any court experience. The plan was to recruit law graduates aged 21-25 years with minimal court experience and provide them with training, some actual exposure to a court, and structured training. Interestingly enough, the Commission recommended different eligibility categories for State lower judiciary positions than for those who would have applied to the AIJS at the national level.
In 1992, the issue presented itself at Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, when the Court endorsed the Law Commission’s recommendations, and held that the AIJS should be formally set up as a centralized AIJS that also allowed the exam to be taken by all fresh law graduates, and further ordered for the establishment of AIJS by the Government.[5]
The matters did not turn out to be very satisfactory in 1993, when a review petition was filed in the same case which changed the focus of inquiry in the judgment, when the Court underlined in its ruling that three years legal practice should be prescribed as a precondition for entry to the subordinate judicial services. It cited that while some States prescribed legal practice as a precondition for entry into the subordinate judiciary, still some States still permitted fresh law graduates with no legal practice to be appointed as judges, and this had not worked out well in practice.
A bold statement was issued by the Court in 1993 from the All India Judges’ Association (II) judgment. The Court held that judges from the very first moment spends time and engages in serious matters involving a person’s life, liberty, property and reputation. It would not be prudent to take inexperienced graduates to hold such important professions and roles as a judge The Court emphasized that it is not appropriate for the State.[6]
In conclusion, the Court stated emphatically that experience as a lawyer is important for a judge to do their job properly. The Court ordered all States to revise their rules and require that an applicant have three years of practice as a lawyer as a qualification for being a judge at the entry level of the judiciary.
Also read: How the three-year Bar experience rule may affect women judiciary candidates
Struggle of judiciary aspirants
The Supreme Court’s directive requiring three years of legal practice prior to participating in judicial services may unintentionally harm many judicial aspirants, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It may be difficult for these candidates to survive while engaging with senior lawyers on an unpaid basis, resulting in them abandoning their dream of becoming judicial officers. Given that women already face pressure from their families, and are less likely to jeopardize their careers in this manner, this regulation may also adversely impact women judicial candidates who may want to pursue a judicial career in a more predictable manner over a more extended period than the typical practice in adversarial reality.[7]
There is also the effect on many law graduates of the poor quality that are working with a corporate firm or are generally engaged in non-litigation practice that has just been excluded by this new rule, that each law graduate will now have to comply with court practice, and that is highly limiting. There will also be an age limit of 30-32 in many of the states on the ages for general candidates so consequently the timing will reduce while preparing particular for those spirit the life of wanting to explore law as a viable career late in life.[8]
In the context of India’s current serious shortage of judges and enormous case backlog, this new rule has the potential to limit candidates available and worsen the vacancies.
This rule will certainly have a significant impact on aspirants from middle-class families who completed their graduation in 2022. At that time, the registration fees for enrolling in the State Bar were comparatively higher than they are now. The mindset of these aspirants was that they preferred to invest that amount in coaching institutions to prepare for competitive exams rather than spending it on registration. Now, having already spent three years after graduation in preparation without registering with the State Bar, they will have to wait another three years to become eligible for the post.
Assuming that three years of legal practice will automatically make someone a better or humbler judge is not a guaranteed outcome. Just spending time in court doesn’t mean a person will gain the right skills or attitude. Instead of forcing candidates to wait and work for three years, it would have been better to provide strong and proper judicial training after they are selected. That way, they could learn exactly what is needed to be a good judge. In its current form, this rule seems to have more drawbacks than benefits, especially for those from poor or challenging backgrounds.[9]
Next steps for judiciary aspirants
With the Supreme Court now requiring a minimum of three years of legal practice before appearing for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exams, law graduates must rethink their approach to entering the judiciary. Earlier, many students started preparing for judicial exams right after completing their law degree. But now, this direct entry route is no longer available. Aspirants must first gain real experience in courtrooms, which means the journey to becoming a judge will now take longer but will also be more meaningful and practical.[10]
Start Practicing at the Bar[11]
The first and most important step is to register with a State Bar Council after completing your law degree. Once enrolled, begin actively practicing in courts—either independently or by working under a senior advocate. This will not only help you fulfill the three-year experience requirement but will also give you the chance to understand how the legal system works in the real world. You’ll learn about court procedures, how to argue cases, and how to interact with clients and judges, which are all essential skills for a future judge.
Keep a Record of Your Practice
Simply practicing is not enough—you must be able to prove it. Keep a proper record of your courtroom appearances and legal work. This can include appearance slips, case files, and certificates from senior advocates or Bar Associations. You’ll also need a verification or endorsement from an advocate who has at least 10 years of experience. These records will help establish your eligibility when you apply for the judicial services exam after completing the three years of practice.[12]
Use the Time to Prepare Academically
While gaining courtroom experience, you should also continue your academic preparation for the judiciary exams. Use this time wisely to strengthen your understanding of core legal subjects like the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Indian Evidence Act, and constitutional law. Also, develop your ability to analyze judgments and improve your answer writing skills, especially in areas like judgment writing and legal reasoning. This dual approach—practical work and academic study—will make you a stronger candidate.[13]
Keep Track of State-wise Rules
Even though the Supreme Court has passed a nationwide ruling, the actual implementation of this rule will depend on how each State Government amends its judicial service exam rules. Some states may implement the rule faster than others. Therefore, it is very important to regularly check the official websites of the State Public Service Commissions or High Courts for updates and notifications. This will ensure you don’t miss any important changes or deadlines related to the exam process.
This too shall pass
This new rule might seem like a delay for fresh law graduates, but it also provides a golden opportunity to build practical skills, gain confidence, and become better prepared for the responsibilities of a judge. The courtroom experience you gain during these three years will not only make your answers in the exam better but will also help you become a more just, capable, and confident judge in the future.
[1] Supreme Court reinstates 3-year Bar experience for civil judges: What it means for judiciary aspirants, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-reinstates-3-year-bar-experience-for-civil-judges-what-it-means-for-judiciary-aspirants
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] The 3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants, The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/3-year-rule-a-setback-to-judiciary-aspirants/article69597321.ece
[5] ibid
[6] Supreme Court reinstates 3-year Bar experience for civil judges: What it means for judiciary aspirants, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-reinstates-3-year-bar-experience-for-civil-judges-what-it-means-for-judiciary-aspirants
[7] The 3-year rule: a setback to judiciary aspirants, The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/3-year-rule-a-setback-to-judiciary-aspirants/article69597321.ece
[8] Supreme Court reinstates 3-year Bar experience for civil judges: What it means for judiciary aspirants, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-reinstates-3-year-bar-experience-for-civil-judges-what-it-means-for-judiciary-aspirants
[9] ibid
[10] 3 year Practice Mandatory For Civil Judge Exam 2025 – Latest News, Physics wallah Live Courses for JEE, NEET & Class 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 | NCERT Solutions – Physics Wallah, https://www.pw.live/judiciary/exams/3-year-practice-for-civil-judge-exam
[11] 3 year Practice Mandatory For Civil Judge Exam 2025 – Latest News, Physics wallah Live Courses for JEE, NEET & Class 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 | NCERT Solutions – Physics Wallah, https://www.pw.live/judiciary/exams/3-year-practice-for-civil-judge-exam
[12] Yogricha, 3 Year Practice Rule Mandatory for Judiciary Exams: Supreme Court Judgement Explained, Proper Noun (May 20, 2025), https://www.toprankers.com/3-year-practice-rule-mandatory-for-judiciary-exams?srsltid=AfmBOop93oBJ-sldmR0xagbqWTT06auIewAh_zdZL0YJLV2LZOYGKO5P.
[13] Benchmarks For The Bench: Revisiting The Three-year Practice Rule For Judicial Exams?, Law School Policy Review, https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2025/05/08/benchmarks-for-the-bench-revisiting-the-three-year-practice-rule-for-judicial-exams/
