Mandatory Three-Year Practice for Judicial Aspirants: SC Judgment Analysis

Introduction

In a landmark development, the Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment, upheld the requirement of three years of practice at the Bar as a mandatory condition for appearing in the judicial services examination for civil judges (junior division) in some states. This judgment has reignited the national debate on whether such eligibility criteria strengthen the judiciary or unnecessarily restrict entry into it. This essay analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment, its rationale, and the broader implications for judicial aspirants and the justice delivery system.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a challenge to a notification issued by High Courts and State Public Service Commissions, especially by Rajasthan High Court, which made three years of minimum practice experience mandatory to apply for the civil judge (junior division) exam.

The petitioners, mostly fresh law graduates, argued that this violated their fundamental right to equality and employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They cited earlier Supreme Court precedents, which had upheld the right of law graduates to directly enter judicial service.

The matter finally reached the Supreme Court Constitution Bench, which delivered its verdict in August 2023.

The Supreme Court’s Judgment (2023)

The Supreme Court, by majority, upheld the validity of the three-year practice requirement for judicial aspirants, saying it does not violate constitutional rights and is within the powers of the High Courts under Article 233.

Key Observations from the Judgment:

1. Article 233 Interpretation
   • Article 233(2) states that a person not already in service of the Union or a State shall be eligible for appointment as district judge only if he has been an advocate for not less than seven years.
   • Although this clause is about District Judges, the Court held that principles of experience can be reasonably applied to entry-level judges as well.
2. Judicial Independence and Competence
   • The Court observed that practical legal experience at the Bar strengthens the quality, maturity, and competence of judges.
   • It helps judges understand court procedures, advocacy challenges, and improves their decision-making and courtroom management.
3. High Courts’ Power under Article 234
   • The Supreme Court held that High Courts, in consultation with State governments and PSCs, have the authority to prescribe additional eligibility conditions, including prior practice.
4. No Fundamental Right Violation
   • The judgment clarified that the rule does not deny opportunities, but only regulates the entry in a reasonable and constitutional manner.

Rationale Behind Mandatory Practice

1. Ensures Practical Legal Exposure

• A freshly graduated law student may lack real-world court experience.
• Three years of practice allow them to learn procedural law, ethics, and court functioning.

2. Improves Judicial Quality

• Judges with litigation experience are likely to be more confident, competent, and better equipped to understand complex cases.
• It promotes judicial maturity from day one.

3. Bridges Theory and Practice

• Legal education often remains theoretical.
• Bar practice ensures aspirants are exposed to ground realities, which improves judgment quality.

Criticism of the Judgment

Despite the judgment’s intent to improve judicial quality, it has faced several criticisms:

1. Discrimination Against Fresh Graduates

• It excludes deserving and talented law graduates who could perform well as judges with proper training.

2. Contrary to Earlier SC Rulings

• In cases like All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (1993) and BPSC v. State of Bihar (2009), the Court had earlier allowed direct recruitment from law graduates to lower judiciary.

3. Bar Experience ≠ Judicial Aptitude

• Not all litigating advocates make good judges, and vice versa.
• Judicial aptitude depends on analytical ability, temperament, and training — not just Bar practice.

4. Reduces Career Options

• In a country with high competition and unemployment, adding another barrier limits opportunities for thousands of law graduates.

Implications of the Judgment

1. State-Specific Rules Validated

• Now, states and High Courts can lawfully mandate 3 years of practice, if they choose to.
• This could lead to variation in recruitment policies across states.

2. Delay in Entry

• Judicial aspirants must now plan for Bar practice before attempting exams, delaying career entry by at least three years.

3. Rise of Coaching + Practice Models

• A new trend may emerge where aspirants combine court practice with coaching, creating new challenges and opportunities.

Way Forward

1. Balanced Policy Approach

• Instead of one-size-fits-all, states can offer dual pathways:
  (a) For fresh graduates with intensive training;
  (b) For experienced advocates with direct posting.

2. Structured Court Internships

• Make practical court internships mandatory during law school to bridge the experience gap.

3. National Judicial Examination Framework

• Create a uniform national judicial entrance system that balances theory, practice, and aptitude testing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the three-year Bar practice requirement reflects its commitment to enhancing judicial competence and independence. However, the policy must be implemented carefully, ensuring that aspiring law graduates are not demotivated or excluded unjustly. Judicial service must remain inclusive, competitive, and quality-driven. Ultimately, the goal is to create a judiciary that is efficient, knowledgeable, and capable of delivering timely justice, and any reform — including this one — must serve that end.