By Abha Mishra, 2nd Year Law Student,IILM University, Greater Noida
The judiciary's importance lies in its role as the interpreter of laws, the resolver of disputes, and the guardian of the constitution and fundamental rights. Judges are the main pillar of the judiciary because they give shape to justice and the legal system through their judgments and interpretations.
Recently, on May 20th, 2025, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement directing all the state governments to amend their judicial service examination rules and mandate practice for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for the said examination. The court concluded that infusion of fresh law graduates with zero experience in litigation was found to be detrimental. This judgment was pronounced by a three-judge bench consisting of 52nd CJI B.R Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and K. Vinod Chandran in All India Judges Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989.
“Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute to the first-hand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice,” Chief Justice Gavai added.
To understand the underlying intent behind the judgment, it is important to analyze the precedential decisions and the sequence of events resulting in the judgement.
Over the years, this issue has been a great topic for debate and the judgements have also evolved. Initially, the Supreme Court mandated three years of legal practice as a prerequisite for judicial service exams in 1993. The Justice Shetty Commission, set up in 1996, found that while almost all States had complied with the three-year rule, some States had gone beyond and prescribed more than three years as minimum qualification.
In the All India Judges’ Association vs Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission that the three-year rule had failed to attract the best talent to judicial services and scrapped the rule. Then in 2002, the court, based on the Justice Shetty Commission's recommendation, removed the rule, believing it would attract more talented candidates to the judiciary. But the removal had more of a negative impact on the judiciary over two decades.
In 2025, the Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, restored the three-year practice requirement, recognizing the importance of practical experience in judicial training, causing concerns all over the country.
Every matter has two sides, one with prosperities and one with contraries. A larger section of people believe that this judgement is a major hindrance for the judiciary system, the judicial aspirants (civil judge junior division), and particularly women candidates, as it will discourage current and upcoming judicial aspirants from appearing in the said examination.
In recent years, women have been increasingly entering judicial services, largely because the path allowed them the flexibility to study from home and clear the exams within a reasonable timeframe. It is important to acknowledge that societal norms in many parts of India still expect women to marry early or shoulder family responsibilities.
Non-litigating advocates would also be hindered by this decision. One of the major setbacks of this decision is that it will increase the shortage of judges, leading to more pendency of cases in courts.
And even after all this, the question remains the same:Will three years at the Bar really make better judges, or will this be a major downfall of the judiciary?
It is expected that the eligibility criterion would help bring in more skilled candidates with practical knowledge of court functioning. Several states have also supported the decision to mandate eligibility criteria, saying that judges when appointed directly show disrespect and are non-serious about their duty towards judiciary.
But here comes a question again:What is the guarantee that after practicing for 3 years, better talent will sit on the bench?
Rather than applying this blanket requirement, the emphasis should have been on well-structured and functional judicial training programs, focusing on courtroom conduct, handling the Bar, and core litigation skills. A lawyer with three years of practice may still lack comprehensive experience or mentorship.
Former judge and now independent practitioner Bharat Chugh, who himself cleared the Delhi Judicial Services at the young age of 23, said:
“The ‘too young to judge’ argument also discounts the fact that a 24-year-old surgeon can perform a life-threatening surgery. A 24-year-old IAS and IPS officer routinely takes decisions that alter people’s lives. The age argument could be made there too.”
But there come prosperities with this decision. Judges, after practicing as advocates for 3 years, will be familiar with procedures, will know the ground realities of the system, and the discrepancies going on in court. This will lead to better decision-making and understanding the judicial system from the grassroots level.
This will mold experience in upcoming judges, enhance practical knowledge, and provide them a better understanding of litigation.
The decision regarding the eligibility criteria for civil judges at the junior division has both its merits and demerits. However, this judgement will affect the judiciary in the long term as the constraints are outweighing the prosperities.
A policy aimed at reform must not become a roadblock for deserving aspirants, but must be guided by clarity, fairness, and inclusivity. The intent behind this decision is to improve the legal system and provide a better understanding of law and litigation—but it must be examined properly.
It is important to acknowledge this problem as urgent, otherwise, it will result in the downfall of the judiciary.
Very well written and informative