REINSTATING THE 3 YEAR PRACTICE AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

INTRODUCTION

In  All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court diligently analyzed the eligibility criteria for sitting in the Civil Judges’ Exam. The Bench directed thatcandidates appearing in theCivil Judge (Junior Division) Examination must have at least three years working experience. This reversed the2002 Ruling that allowed the recent law graduates to enter Judiciary, sans practice or prior experience. The Court emphasized that the focal point in judicial power and the effective administration of justice is the knowledge byfirst-hand experience.This Judgement revived the decision provided in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The debate over the necessity of legal practice for judicial appointments has been longstanding. The Hon’ble Supreme court having taken into account the complex process of litigation had in 1993 laid down that ‘not less than 3 years of practice’ standing be made favorable for those aspiring to join the judicial services.

The recommendations made by the Shetty Commission scraped this requirement in 2002,opening up the positions in the lower judiciary to fresh law graduates. The Commission’s contention was based on the reasoning that the requirement of minimum 3 years practice was demotivating young lawyers and leading to vacancies being created in the lower judiciary. Following this many States amended their judicial service rules to allow fresh law graduates to appear in civil judge exams.

 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This contention was challenged over a decade later in 2014, after which it was heard by a 3 JudgesBench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih and Justice K.V. Chandran. The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions relating to the rules regarding eligibility criteria for judicial services. Some High Courts had already inserted this in their Rules emphasizing on ‘practice experience’ thus raising the concern for uniformity amongst the States.

In May 2025 the Supreme Court set aside the 2002 Judgement and reverted to back to the1993 position making it mandatory for all Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates to have a minimum of 3 years practice.

The Supreme Court has also asked all the High Courts to modify their Rules within three months following which their State Governments would have another three months to approve the modifications resulting in unison in all states.

 

ISSUED INVOLVED

1. Is the minimum three years practice criteria necessary for entry into the judiciary?
2. Does first hand courtroom experience help as a Judge in terms of judging correctness and empathy and a more efficient judge procedural-wise?
3. Can Supreme Court dictate a uniform model for appointment of judges between states in a federal structure?

 

ANALYSIS

There were concerns about newly appointed Judges lacking practical courtroom experience. Madhya Pradesh had already changed its Rules requiring either three years of practice or an LL.M. degree with at least 70% marks to be eligible. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld these changes noting that many judgements by fresh recruits were poor in quality due to their inexperience. Whereas States like Chhattisgarh and Sikkim were worried that adding such requirements might reduce the number of eligible candidates and slow down the recruitment process. Despite this the overall trend across the States was to focus more on the quality and competence of judges, rather than just trying to fill vacancies quickly,

The key point of the Judgement was the decision in the case of All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India (1993) where it said that practical experience as an Advocate is necessary to become a judge. The Court expanded that a Judge shouldn’t have just book knowledge but also understand the real-life workings of the law and the Judiciary, which is something that cannot be taught.

After the requirements were relaxed in 2002, the Courts said that it didn’t work well in practice as it led to Judges lacking the necessary maturity and practical understanding. The Bench clearly states that practicing as a lawyer helps build the maturity needed to uphold judicial independence, honesty and efficiency. The Court said that practical exposure helps future judges understand courtroom procedure and the human side of the disputes.

The Supreme Court pointed out that Judges have a very different role as compared to lawyers or government officers. A Judge with no courtroom experience may struggle to apply the law correctly and understand the intricacies of a legal proceeding.

Chief Justice B.R. Gavi said that just being good in academicsis not enough to be a good Judge. He explained that legal education in India is mostly theoretical and does not give students real life training. So, fresh law graduates may lack the maturity needed to make a fair and balanced decision in court.

The Bench also mentioned that Article 233 of the Constitution which talks about appointment of District Judges. While this Article doesn’t directly apply to entry level Civil Judges, the spirit of the provision supports the idea of having experience to become a Judge.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision to bring back the three-year practice requirement for Civil Judge Exam is a much-needed correction in the system of judicial appointments. Even though it might reduce the number of eligible candidates, the end goal is to improve the overall quality of the judges in the lower courts.

The 2025 Judgment shows that focus should be on substance, not speed. The need is for well prepared and experienced future Judges and not just filling the vacancies. In times when courts are under pressure with growing workloads and rising public expectations, the Country needs trained and tested professionals and not just law graduates. The Supreme Court rightly emphasized that Judges must be well prepared and to serve as the true guardians of justice.

 

BENJAMIN THOMAS

INTERN, 4^TH YEAR,

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

 

EDITORS COMMENTS

Lawyering is essential before judging as only after a person works as a lawyer can he or she understand the finer nuances of the law, the practical applicability of the law and the essentials of giving a balanced judgement. Very often we see that some of the brightest minds securing high marks in theory are unable to understand the practical aspects of law. As a lawyer one learns that offence is the best form of defense. Working as a lawyer for both the petitioner as well as the respondent allows a young lawyer to see both sides of the coin. This practical experience eventually leads to thinking outside the box.

Sushila Ram Varma Advocate

Chief Consultant The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vbGQNRP56uI

 

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Senior Citizens: Legal Rights & Support Systems Explained” can be viewed at the link below:

https://youtu.be/gWns2AXAAP8?si=jJubUQoDl56cDQV1