In the recent ruling in All India Judges Association v. Union of India case the Supreme Court restored a minimum of three years of legal practice as a mandatory requirement for entry into the judicial service.

About the Three-Year Judicial Practice Mandate

• Eligibility Clause: The Three-Year Judicial Practice Mandate refers to a proposal that only advocates with at least three years of courtroom experience should be eligible for entry into the subordinate judiciary through direct recruitment.
• Recommendation for Practical Experience
• • The 14th Law Commission of India ( 1958) recommended that candidates for judicial service should have at least three years of legal practice to enhance the professional calibre of judicial officers.
  • Justice Shetty Commission (2002) constituted for judicial pay and service conditions, also endorsed a minimum three-year bar practice as a prerequisite for recruitment to the judiciary to ensure competent and experienced judges.

Judicial Service in India

• The Indian judicial service system traces its roots to the colonial period, where civil services including judiciary were structured under British legal norms.
• Post-Independence Structure: After independence, judicial appointments were governed by Articles 233–237 of the Constitution, with State-level recruitment for subordinate judiciary by Public Service Commissions in consultation with High Courts.

Key Reforms and Cases

• All India Judges Association Case (1991): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court directed uniformity in service conditions and training across judicial services, advocating for better pay and working conditions.
• All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1993): SC Upheld that candidates must have at least three years of practice as an advocate before joining the judicial service.
• 2002 Supreme Court Ruling: The Court removed the earlier requirement of mandatory three-year legal practice for judicial exams, enabling fresh law graduates to apply.
• Recent Developments:Supreme Court reinstated the three-year legal practice mandate, citing concerns over immature judicial decisions by inexperienced judges.
  • This reversed the 2002 stance.

Rationale Behind the Change

• Courtroom Exposure: The court argues that real courtroom experience is critical to judicial effectiveness.
• High Court Support: 23 out of 25 High Courts supported the requirement, citing poor outcomes with fresh graduates.
  • The Bar Council of India also criticized judges lacking Bar experience as “incapable and inept”.
• Emotional Maturity: Practical legal experience imparts emotional maturity that classroom training cannot offer.
  • The Uttarakhand High Court emphasized the importance of real-world exposure for better judgment.
    

Concerns Raised Against the Decision

• Limited Practical Value: Experts believe that three years is insufficient to develop meaningful legal expertise.
  • Entry-level litigators often do peripheral tasks, like adjournments, not substantive legal work.
• Flawed Process: The decision lacks data-driven backing or public consultation.
  • Critics argue this is an instance of “courtroom policymaking” that bypasses executive authority under Article 234.
• Lag in Judicial Training Institutes: Existing training programmes are under-equipped to instill practical skills.
  • Effective training needs individual mentorship, which current judicial academies cannot provide.
• Mere Formality: No clear parameters to assess legal experience have been laid out making it a tick-box requirement without structured documentation or verification.
• Impact on Diversity: The mandate may exclude talented candidates from marginalised or economically weaker backgrounds.
  • Women candidates could be disproportionately affected due to challenges in sustaining litigation practice.
• Deterrent to Top Talent: Judicial service may become less attractive due to poor working conditions and delayed exams.
  • Older candidates face career trade-offs and limited incentives to switch from litigation to judiciary.

Way Forward

• Incentives: Judicial service must be made more attractive by improving career incentives, working conditions, and salary structures to retain top legal talent.
• Verification: A digital diary system should be introduced for candidates to upload verifiable court appearances, ensuring inclusivity for those from non-litigation roles.
• Training: Judicial academies should be strengthened with extended, mentored, and simulation-based training to effectively bridge the courtroom experience gap.
• Policy Reform: Empirical data must guide reforms, and eligibility changes should be made through executive processes with public consultation to avoid judicial overreach.