In a landmark moment, the Supreme Court of India on 20th May 2025, in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025)[1], restored the mandate of a minimum of three years of practice as a precondition for entry into the judicial services. While some hail this decision as a return to traditional values, others view it as an obstacle for young aspirants. However, to fully understand the decision’s significance, one must delve into its constitutional, historical, and philosophical underpinnings.
The Legal Trajectory
This isn’t the first time the judiciary has mandated prior courtroom experience. In 1991, in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992)[2], the apex court, for the first time, emphasised that judicial officers must have at least three years of practice in the courts before being allowed to enter judicial services. The logic behind this was simple yet profound: Judges without firsthand experience of courtroom dynamics cannot understand the nuanced reality of the courtroom proceedings.
However, the Justice K.J. Shetty Commission[3] (1996) later recommended removing this condition. The commission was of the view that it deterred brilliant young minds from joining the judicial services. Acting upon this, the Supreme Court of India, in its 2002 judgement, relaxed the rule, allowing law graduates to sit for the judicial service exam directly, provide they underwent adequate structured judicial training. What followed was a fractured implementation, as states like Madhya Pradesh required experience, while others such as Chhattisgarh, Haryana and others followed the relaxation and allowed freshers.
Unspoken Standards: Addressing Article 233(2) Silence on Civil Judges
The debate largely revolves around Article 233(2) of the Constitution[4], which requires a minimum seven years of practice for district judges but says little about Civil Judges (Junior Division). Previously, fresh law graduates aspiring to enter the judicial services were allowed to apply for these posts throughState Public Service Commissions without any such mandatory requirement. However, the Supreme Court recently addressed this issue.
The Court clarified that just because the Constitution is silent on the eligibility for Civil Judges (Junior Division), it does not mean that no such eligibility criteria can be laid down[5]. In fact, the Court held that it is both reasonable and necessary to impose certain qualifications to ensure that those who become judges are competent and capable. The court’s reasoning was simple: mere silence in the constitution should not be seen as a prohibition. Instead, it leaves room for the authorities—such as State Public Service Commissions or State Governments—to set reasonable and fair rules.
In short, the states do have the flexibility to impose a fair eligibility standard to ensure competent judges at the entry level.
Why Experience Matters
At its core, law is not merely a pure academic pursuit; it is a profession that moulded in the crucible of real-life conflict, human suffering, and moral dilemmas. In recent years, a worrying trend has emerged: law students are solely focused on clearing the judicial exam and often disregard the courtroom, treating law merely as a theoretical discipline comparing to any other competitive examination.
This mindset eventually corrodes the soul of legal education. Law schools are not merely centres for theoretical or doctrinal knowledge; they are incubators of critical reasoning, problem-solving, and empathetic advocacy. A judge who has never drafted a plaint, cross-examined a witness, or waited eagerly for a verdict to pass can hardly be expected to understand the anxieties of those who do it.
The Other Side of the Bench
There is an ancient legal maxim: Audi alteram partem—hear the other side. How can we expect from a judge to uphold this principle, if they have never stood on the “other side” themselves? Having once been an advocate, the judge is likely to carry with them a deeper understanding of procedural hardships, the emotions of the clients, and the heavy weight of responsibilities that comes with every legal proceeding.
Moreover, the mandate of litigation experience may uncover the hidden potentials of many bright law student who dreamed of donning the robes of a judge but never attempted advocacy. When this becomes a mandatory condition to practice, they may discover a genuine passion for litigation. And as many seasoned lawyers confess, “Once you fall in love with courtroom, there’s no going back.”
Reducing the Rush, Increasing Respect
This mandatory requirement may act as a natural filter. The entry-level exams for judicial services witness an overwhelming number of aspirants[6], many of whom approach it with a ‘tick-the-box’ attitude. The requirement of practice will likely discourage those interested only in the security and prestige of a judicial post, thereby elevating the quality and seriousness of the future applicants.
A Chance for Pro Bono Justice
One particularly inspiring idea emerges at this moment: if every judicial aspirant is to practice for minimum of three years, why not make it mandatory for them to take on at least three pro bono cases per year? Not only this would result in helping thousands of indigent litigants, but it would also inculcate a sense of social service and humility in future judges. Such engagement would result in fostering an early commitment to the ideals of access to justice, which would eventually reduce the ever-mounting pendency of cases involving the underprivileged.
The Bench is Not Just a Chair—It’s a Responsibility
The judiciary is not a place for theoretical perfectionists, instead, it is a place where real people come with real problems, hoping for fairness, dignity and resolution. To deliver that, we direly need judges who have themselves tasted the dust of the courtroom, who have understood the pressures of a cross-examination, and who have also seen the pain behind the paper work.
By restoring the three-year mandatory practice requirement, the apex court has reaffirmed the dignity of the legal profession and protected the sanctity of the bench. This decision, rather than being a roadblock, is an invitation to future judges to live the law before they judge it.
Because justice, at the end of the day, cannot be learned in a classroom alone. It must be felt, fought for, and lived.
[1] All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2025) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1146
[2] All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119
[3] Justice K.J. Shetty Commission, Report of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, Vol. I, Nov. 1999.
[4] India Const. art. 233(2).
[5] All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2025) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1146
[6] UPPSC PCS-J Result 2018-19 Declared: Akanksha Tiwari Tops List of Qualified Candidates in Judicial Service (Civil Judge).” Hindustan Times, 21 Feb. 2020, www.hindustantimes.com/education/uppsc-pcs-j-result-2018-19-declared-akanksha-tiwari-tops-list-of-qualified-candidates-in-judicial-service-civil-judge-here/story-raugOpy3zEQlPlZtYrGrhI.html.
Author: Himanshu Yadav is a third-year law student at Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli
