Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Practice Rule for Judges: What It Means for Aspirants

Can you really become a judge straight out of law school? For the past two decades in India, the answer was yes. But not anymore.

In a significant ruling that’s set to impact thousands of judicial aspirants, the Supreme Court on May 20, 2025, upheld the requirement of a minimum of three years of legal practice before applying for civil judge (junior division) posts. Delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, the judgment reverses a 2002 decision that had allowed fresh law graduates to enter the judiciary directly.

What Triggered the Change?

The verdict stems from long-standing concerns raised by several High Courts, judicial officers, and legal experts who observed that appointing judges without any courtroom experience was causing serious issues in the justice delivery system. Many felt that even the best classroom education or pre-service training couldn’t substitute the first-hand experience of litigation, procedure, and courtroom dynamics.

“Judges deal with matters of life, liberty, and property from day one,” the bench remarked. “Without prior exposure to the real functioning of courts, fresh graduates are ill-equipped to shoulder such responsibility.”

The Story So Far: From Relaxation to Reinstatement

• Pre-2002: A 3-year practice requirement was the norm.
• 2002: In All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court removed this condition based on the Shetty Commission’s recommendation to attract “bright young minds.”
• Post-2002: Several High Courts began appointing law graduates directly. But over time, feedback turned negative.
• 2025: The SC reviews years of experience and restores the practice rule.

What the Supreme Court Observed

• The Court criticized the shortcomings of fresh law graduates entering service without experience.
• It cited widespread concerns: lack of practical knowledge, poor handling of complex matters, and disconnect from procedural realities.
• The Court accepted submissions by Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar (Amicus Curiae) who warned that many aspirants pretend to practice by merely signing vakalats, without real courtroom exposure.

What’s New in the 2025 Judgment?

• The 3-year minimum legal practice is now mandatory for applying to entry-level judicial posts.
• This rule will apply only to future recruitment cycles (Judicial service eligibility 2025) — any process already started by High Courts before May 20, 2025, is exempt.
• Importantly, experience as a law clerk with judges will also count toward the 3-year requirement.
• The Court acknowledged this as a balanced way to include genuine courtroom exposure while discouraging token or passive legal practice.

Why It Matters

This ruling reaffirms that judicial competence isn’t just about knowledge—it’s about lived legal experience. The SC emphasized that a judge must not only know the law but must also understand how it works in practice. Only by witnessing arguments, learning from the bench, and observing procedural nuances can a future judge be truly effective.

Most High Courts supported this return to experience-based eligibility, calling the direct recruitment of graduates “counterproductive.” Only Sikkim and Chhattisgarh High Courts held contrary views.

Final Word: A Win for Practical Legal Training?

The judgment signals a course correction in judicial recruitment philosophy. While the idea of attracting young talent remains important, the Court has drawn a clear line: real-world legal experience is non-negotiable.

If you’re a law student or a fresh graduate aiming for the judiciary, it’s time to hit the courtrooms—not just the books. Your three years of practice won’t just be a formality—it’ll be your foundation as a future judge.