Supreme Court hears review petitions challenging three-year practice rule for entry-level judges

Today, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran heard review petitions against its 2025 judgement in All India Judges Association v Union of India, which held that candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practised as an advocate or law clerk for at least three years. The judgement had restored the practice requirement after overruling the Court’s 2002 decision, which had allowed fresh law graduates to enter the judicial service without prior experience at the Bar. 

Review petitioners argued that the experience requirement discouraged talented graduates from entering the judiciary, particularly women and graduates from leading law schools. They urged the Court to strengthen induction training and judicial education instead of insisting on litigation experience. Respondents, however, maintained that practical experience at the Bar remains essential for judges entering the trial courts.

Counsel press for stronger judicial training

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand submitted that litigation experience should not be treated as the only route to judicial competence. She suggested that selected candidates undergo structured practical training by working with senior advocates, government pleaders, advocate generals, standing counsel and assistant legal aid defence Counsel under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, 2022.

Anand submitted that aspiring judges complete structured practical training across courts, prosecution offices and other legal institutions before appointment. She suggested that the Court consider a common framework for induction training through the National Judicial Academy or a permanent committee headed by the Chief Justice of India. Her proposals also included structured practice modules during law school, specialised courses for students intending to join the judiciary and greater opportunities for Civil Judges to pursue higher legal education, exchange programmes and deputations. “We have to bring the judges at the correct age,” Anand submitted.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that the expansion of State Judicial Academies had reduced the need for compulsory litigation experience before recruitment. He argued that intensive induction programmes, together with clerkships, legal aid work, internships and continuous assessment, could prepare fresh graduates for judicial office more effectively than requiring them to spend three years at the Bar.

Gonsalves also relied on recommendations from National Law Universities, submitting that the practice requirement discourages graduates from joining the judicial service despite persistent vacancies.

Disability rights group seek accommodation 

Counsel appearing for persons with disabilities urged the Court to account for the additional barriers disabled advocates face in completing the three-year practice requirement. The intervention proposed annual sensitisation programmes for judges, lawyers and court staff, a different method of calculating the practice requirement for advocates with disabilities and implementation of Equal Opportunity Policies by law offices under Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 

Another intervenor submitted that the ability of women with disabilities to practise law often depended on “the accessibility of legal infrastructure, family support, safety concerns and prevailing social attitudes” and that they suffered a “compounding disadvantage” because of the intersection of gender and disability. The CJI acknowledged the suggestions and said, “The suggestions placed before us are valuable, and would remain on record.”

Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija supported strengthening judicial training but questioned whether a centralised National Judicial Academy would be suited to India’s linguistic and administrative diversity. She submitted that High Courts were better placed to design and supervise induction training for the subordinate judiciary.

An intervenor appearing on behalf of women with disabilities submitted that accessibility barriers, safety concerns and social attitudes often restrict their ability to practise law, making the three-year practice requirement disproportionately burdensome.

High Courts’ views support the requirement, Court told

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar submitted that High Courts had “overwhelmingly” supported the requirement of prior practice before appointment to the judicial service. He argued that the experiment with recruiting fresh graduates had not produced judges“adequately prepared for judicial work.” 

Bhatnagar warned against creating exemptions from the eligibility condition for specific groups. While supporting concessions such as judicial clerkships, relaxed qualifying marks and other institutional support for women and persons with disabilities, he contended, “If exemptions from the three-year practice requirement are carved out for specific categories, many others will also seek similar exemptions.”

As an alternative, Bhatnagar proposed a gradual implementation of the rule. He suggested that fresh graduates could be permitted to appear for the Civil Judge examination during a transition period before the 3-year requirement takes full effect. Another option, he suggested, would be to phase in the requirement itself: “ ‘Zero years’ practice for the 2026 recruitment, one year for 2027, two years for 2028, and thereafter the full three-year practice requirement.”