Three Years to the Bench: A Move Towards Judicial Maturity

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA,
(2002) 4 SCC 247

The judiciary serves as a cornerstone of democracy, and its efficacy relies heavily on the quality, wisdom, and expertise of its members. Historically, law graduates in India had the option to take judicial service exams immediately after finishing their law degrees. Although this created pathways for youthful candidates, it also prompted worries regarding their insufficient practical knowledge and the maturity required for judicial roles. Detractors contended that judges lacking courtroom experience frequently faced challenges with the intricate procedural and substantive realities of the legal system. The Shetty Commission (First National Judicial Pay Commission), created in the late 1990s, also suggested a consistent three-year training requirement for joining the judicial service, contending that experience in the courtroom is crucial for effective judicial functioning.

Nonetheless, as time passed, numerous states weakened or eliminated this requirement, enabling even recent law graduates to participate in judicial service examinations. This discrepancy triggered significant worries regarding the qualifications and preparedness of newly appointed judges. In the past few years, a major reform has been suggested and executed in various Indian states: mandating that individuals who wish to become Civil Judges (Junior Division) must possess at least three years of experience as an advocate. This requirement aims to connect the disparity between the theoretical understanding gained in law schools and the practical usage of law within the courtroom.

FACTS:

The petition was originally filed by the All-India Judges Association in 1989, aiming for enhancements in the work environments, compensation, and service regulations of the lower judiciary. Throughout the years, numerous significant rulings have been issued in this matter, encompassing the acknowledgment of the Shetty Commission's suggestions and consistency in judicial salary structures.

In 2025, the matter was brought once more before the esteemed Supreme Court for deliberation on an important reform: requiring candidates who take the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination to have at least three years of experience practicing as an advocate. The catalyst for this recent stage was the increasing worry about the caliber of decisions made by new law graduates who had joined the judiciary without any practical courtroom experience. Various High Courts and legal organizations had backed the concept of experience-oriented eligibility. The Union of India, nevertheless, permitted each State to determine the issue independently, leading to a fragmented set of hiring regulations. Certain States permitted direct hiring from law schools, whereas others demanded prior experience as a condition. This gap of uniformity brought up constitutional issues related to equality and the independence of the judiciary.

ISSUES:

1. Whether requiring a minimum of three years of experience at the Bar as a prerequisite for participating in judicial service exams (specifically for the position of Civil Judge, Junior Division) was constitutionally sound and justified?
2. Whether the lack of a consistent rule among all States regarding specific subject matter results in a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the grounds of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of similarly situated candidates/persons?
3. Whether the implementation of specific requirement serves the legitimate objective of enhancing judicial proficiency, maturity, and autonomy at the local level?
4. Whether such requirement creates an unreasonable barrier to entry for recent graduates seeking to pursue judicial careers, thereby constituting an unjust restriction on their right to engage in public service?

JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court, in its decision on May 20, 2025, affirmed the constitutional legitimacy and importance of the three-year practice requirement. It determined that mandating prior courtroom experience for Civil Judge (Junior Division) candidates was a reasonable restriction that served the larger public interest and enhanced the competency of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must not only be theoretically robust but also practically skilled in courtroom protocols, understanding of evidence, and engagement with litigants, abilities that are most effectively acquired through hands-on experience. Referencing its previous decision from 2002 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed that recent graduates do not possess the maturity required to carry out judicial responsibilities. The Court also referenced Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which requires seven years of experience for senior judicial positions, and concluded that a similar logic applies even at the entry-level of the judiciary. In concerning the Article 14 argument, the Court determined that the lack of consistency among States alone did not render the practice requirement unconstitutional, but it instructed the Union of India and States must align their regulations to guarantee equity and uniformity across the nation. The ruling determined that the three-year practice requirement was both constitutional and an essential judicial reform. It instructed all States and Union Territories to modify their hiring guidelines within a six-month period to include the practice necessity and to guarantee consistent criteria in recruitment.

COURT’S REASONING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional legitimacy and practical necessity of mandating a minimum of three years of legal practice as a condition for taking the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. The Court's rationale was based on the understanding that judicial officers, even at the entry level, should possess more than merely academic credentials - they also need substantial real-world legal experience. It noted that firsthand experience with courtroom procedures, client relationships, and legal reasoning provides prospective judges with the maturity and capability essential for executing their responsibilities effectively. In the absence of such experience, recent law graduates may not have the experiential basis required to resolve disputes justly and efficiently.

The Court relied on Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires a minimum of seven years of legal practice for selection as District Judges. While this article pertains specifically to senior judicial appointments, the Court concluded that its fundamental principle, the importance of legal experience, also pertains to lower judicial roles. In previous rulings, notably the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in the same matter, the Court had already highlighted the significance of a three-year experience prerequisite. It observed that in the absence of an advocacy background, judges frequently depend too much on support personnel and do not possess the procedural authority needed for efficient decision-making.

The Court recognized discrepancies among different State Judicial Service Regulations - certain States required legal experience while others did not. It urged alignment among States to guarantee consistency in eligibility criteria. The three-year prerequisite, the Court determined, is not merely a bureaucratic obstacle but a reform initiative intended to cultivate a more skilled, autonomous, and developed judiciary at the community level. This ruling was also in sync with wider ongoing conversations about the formation of an All-India Judicial Service, in which experience would be a primary qualifying factor.

RECENT SCENARIO

A practicing lawyer, registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and a distressed candidate for the judicial service submitted the review petition citing that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated due to the enforcement of an arbitrary and unreasonable requirement of mandatory three years’ practice at the Bar, as outlined in the contested ruling, which negatively impacts the petitioner’s right to equal opportunity and fair access to public employment.

The petitioner was especially troubled by Direction No. 7 of the contested ruling-
“All High Courts and State Governments across the nation shall revise the applicable service regulations to stipulate that candidates wishing to take the examination for the role of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have a minimum of 3 years of practice to qualify for the examination. To satisfy this condition, the regulations shall require candidates to provide a certificate confirming this, duly signed either by the Principal Judicial Officer of that Court or by an advocate with at least 10 years of experience, verified by the Principal Judicial Officer of that District or a Principal Judicial Officer at that location. For candidates practicing before the High Courts or this Court, certification must come from an advocate with a minimum of 10 years of experience, duly confirmed by an officer appointed by that High Court or this Court. Additionally, we mandate that the experience candidates have accrued while serving as Law Clerks with any Judges or Judicial Officers throughout the country be taken into account when assessing their total years of practice. The regulations will also specify that candidates who are appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) following their selection through the examination must complete a mandatory training period of at least 1 year before assuming their position in a Court.”

It was argued that the obligatory 3-year legal practice requirement should commence only in 2027 to prevent unfairly excluding recent graduates (2023-2025) who trained under the earlier eligibility standards. Prompt implementation leads to retroactive struggle, contravening the tenets of justice, rightful anticipation, and equitable access in accordance with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

While the necessity of having at least three years of legal experience before taking the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam is based on the aim of establishing a more skilled and knowledgeable judiciary, its execution warrants further scrutiny. The real-world experience obtained during this timeframe certainly provides prospective judges with valuable understanding of courtroom operations, client relations, and the moral dilemmas of legal representation. This aligns with the wider objective of cultivating a judiciary that is not only legally proficient but also socially aware and developed. Nonetheless, inquiries arise if the simple passage of time in the legal field is considered as significant experience, how should we regard the students who have been studying for the judiciary exam for an extended period alongside their academic studies? Was it necessary to enforce this rule right away in the forthcoming examination, or could there have been a period provided for proper implementation over the next 2-3 years?

In various areas, emerging advocates encounter insufficient organized guidance, underemployment, or alternatively, non-litigation positions that may not effectively contribute to their judicial skills. Consequently, although the three-year practice guideline is suggested as an essential measure to confirm judicial preparedness, it should be paired with systemic changes like mentorship assistance, monetary stipends, and qualitative assessments of the practice duration - to guarantee the rule fulfills its designed role and does not turn into a random or discriminatory obstacle for truly qualified individuals.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling re-establishing the compulsory three-year practice prerequisite for candidates aspiring to become Civil Judges (Junior Division) represents a significant step towards improving the caliber and development of the subordinate judiciary in India. It underscores a persistent agreement that practical experience is crucial for judicial officials, particularly those responsible for interpreting laws and administering justice at the community level. Although theoretical instruction lays the groundwork, hands-on experience in litigation enhances analytical abilities, cultivates procedural knowledge, and encourages empathy - all vital qualities for a judicial officer.