Introduction
Every law student aspires to be a judge, but their aspiration has been halted by the Supreme Court for three years. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of the All-India Judges’ Association and Ors v Union of India, has mandated a minimum practice of three years to be eligible to appear for the civil judge examination. Many law students view the judgment as a setback, while the judges view this as a way to strengthen the judicial system. This blog will analyse the viewpoints of both sides and delve into the history and reasoning behind this judgment.
The backdrop of the judgment
The Law Commission of India in its 117th report named “Training of judicial officers” mention the effectiveness of three years practice at the bar, citing that it helps the law student to learn practical things and emphasis upon the need of having an intensive training of two years.[i] In the year 1993 on the recommendation of this report, the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors v Union of India (second AIJA case) held that law graduates need to have a minimum practice of three years to be eligible for the civil judge examination. The court held that only books or pre-service training is not sufficient, rather the law graduates must practice in the court, to gain first-hand experience on the workings of the court, and administration of justice is begotten through legal practice.[ii]
However, the court overturns its judgment in the third AIJA case, in the year 2002. The court here relies on the Shetty Commission report which recommends that rather on the legal practice at the court, the institutional training for the selected candidates should be priorities.[iii] It noted that earlier the curriculum was such that it required three-year practice but now the curriculum has changed, and as it mandates a student to attend court During college time, then what is the need of having three-year practice?
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement has changes its viewpoint and now has mandates a minimum practice of three year for fresh law graduates, citing the lack of practical experience in judges, coming directly from college to court.
The reasoning of the bench
The Supreme Court noted that a fresh law graduate, when becoming a judge has to decide upon the question of life, liberty, property, and reputation among other important aspects, and as he doesn’t have a background in lawyering or practice, it creates a space for miscarriage of justice. For adjudication only the knowledge of books or pre-service training is not sufficient, the practicality of law can be known only by legal practice.[iv] Therefore, all the states must make it compulsory to have a minimum of three years of practice as a lawyer, for becoming eligible for the civil judge (junior division) examination.
The different high courts have submitted their opinion regarding this, wherein the high courts have agreed to have a minimum of three practices at the bar. Submission made by high courts mentions that the young law graduates coming directly from the college, lack procedural knowledge and also mistreat the bar members and staff members. Exposure to the courtroom will help the young law graduate to know the duties and responsibilities of every stakeholder involved in the judicial system, and it will also bring a sense of respect and clarity and will help to understand the role of the bar in the judicial dispensation. [v]The number of years of practice will be counted from the date of provisional enrolment at the concerned state bar council and the change will have a prospective effect and will not affect the ongoing appointment.
Potential challenges for aspiring judges
The Supreme Court has certainly brought this change with good intentions and to robust the judiciary, but this change has adversely affected many judicial aspirants. The aspirants from economically weaker sections, might not choose the path of the judiciary as practicing provides no incentive, and working with seniors also doesn’t guarantee a stipend. Those working in law firms and making a good amount of money may have, become unemployed for three years before becoming a judge.[vi] Such a decision will also reduce the participation of women as the extended and uncertain career will make their lives more complicated and will stop them from choosing the judiciary as a career.
The Shetty Commission in its report, submitted in 1999 mentions that earlier there was a need for having a minimum of three years of practice because the earlier curriculum did not contain legal practice as a subject but now the curriculum has been changed and as directed by the bar council of India, the law students mandatorily have to visit court, Durning their course, which negates the idea of three-year practice rule. The commission also noted that the National Law University of India produced brilliant and talented law graduates, who have more knowledge than any junior advocate practicing for more than three years at the bar, and by reinstatement of such judgment, the very purpose of law school will be defeated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent judgement mandate three-year legal practice for Civil Judge (lower division) examination. The hon’ble court bring this change to enhance practical courtroom experience. However, the court forget to take note of potential challenges created in the life of judicial aspirants particularly those coming from economically weaker sections, women, and non-litigating lawyers. Such a change may worsen existing judicial vacancies and backlogs, while its effectiveness in producing better judges remains debatable. Critics argue that robust judicial training, not arbitrary practice duration, is key to produce competent judge. While well-intentioned, the judgment may create more problems than benefits, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that values both legal experience and inclusive, structured training systems.
[i] Supreme Court Observer. 2025. “Three Years of Practice Must for Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility – Supreme Court Observer.” May 23, 2025. https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/three-years-of-practice-must-for-civil-judge-junior-division-eligibility-all-india-judges-association-v-union-of-india-eligibility-judicial-officers/.
[ii] Law, Live. 2025. “Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice as Advocate to Enter Judicial Service.” Live Law, May 20, 2025. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-mandates-minimum-practice-as-advocate-to-enter-judicial-service-292727.
[iii] Debayan Roy, and Debayan Roy. 2025. “Supreme Court Rules Three-year Practice as Lawyer
Necessary to Be Eligible for Judicial Service.” Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News. May 20, 2025.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-rules-three-year-practice-as-lawyer-necessary-to be-eligible-for-judicial service.
[iv] Aryan, Aditya. 2025. “Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Minimum Practice Requirement for
Civil Judge (Junior Division) Posts.” Lawctopus. May 20, 2025
https://www.lawctopus.com/supreme-court-restores-3-year-minimum-practice-requirement-for-civil judge-junior-division-posts/.
[v] “The 3-year Rule: A Setback to Judiciary Aspirants.” The Hindu. May 21, 2025.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/3-year-rule-a-setback-to-judiciary aspirants/article69597321.ece.
[vi] 2025b. “Supreme Court Reinstates 3-year Bar Experience for Civil Judges: What It Means for Judiciary Aspirants.” Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News. May 25, 2025. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-reinstates-3-year-bar-experience-for-civil-judges-what-it-means-for-judiciary-aspirants.
Author– Archana Kumari, BA.LLB, 4th year, Central university, Chhattisgarh
