Bench with Experience: Supreme Court Reforms Judicial Service Entry with 3-Year Practice Mandate
On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India mandated that candidates must have a minimum of three years of legal practice experience before appearing for judicial service examinations. Its intent is to ensure that people working in the judiciary have gained valuable experience thanks to their practical work.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court's Decision
- Implementation Timeline: The ruling applies prospectively, affecting only future recruitment processes initiated after May 20, 2025. The new law won’t change any preexisting recruitment processes.
- Objective: To ensure that candidates have practical legal experience, thereby enhancing the quality and effectiveness of judicial functionaries.
- Scope: The decision standardizes the eligibility criteria across states, mandating the three-year practice requirement for entry-level judicial positions.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
The Supreme Court's authority to issue such directives stems from:
- Article 141: Establishes that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India.
- Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
- Article 233: Pertains to the appointment of district judges, requiring consultation with the High Court.
- Article 234: Relates to the recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service, involving the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
The Supreme Court's decision aligns with its earlier judgments, notably the All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (1993), which emphasized the necessity of practical legal experience for judicial officers.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Judgement
Pros
- Better Understanding: Through experience, judges can better handle court procedures and cases presented by litigants.
- Standardization: Uniform eligibility criteria across states promote consistency in judicial appointments.
- Public Belief: Judges who have practised for a long time are more likely to command public confidence in the justice system.
Cons
- Barrier for Fresh Graduates: The requirement may deter recent law graduates from pursuing judicial careers, potentially leading to a talent drain.
- Fewer Candidates from Minority Groups: There may be fewer candidates from minority groups and underprivileged backgrounds in the judiciary since they find it difficult to survive three years without regular earnings.
- Potential for Elitism: The rule may inadvertently favor candidates from legal families who have the means and networks to support themselves during the practice period. (Jha & Jha, 2025b)
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's directive mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice for judicial service aspirants seeks to enhance the competence and effectiveness of the judiciary. It is created to enable judges to handle complex aspects of cases, yet it may be at the cost of making the judicial system more accessible and diverse. Balancing the need for experience with inclusivity remains a critical challenge moving forward.
References
- The Economic Times. (2025, May 20). Law graduates must now have three years of legal practice before appearing for judicial services exams.
- Law Trend. (2025, May 20). Supreme Court upholds 3-year minimum legal practice requirement for entry into judicial service.
- Jha, S. & Jha, S. (2025b, April 8). SubscriberWrites: Flaws of the 3-year practice rule for judiciary exams. ThePrint.
