Debate Rekindled Over 3-Year Bar Practice Rule for Judicial Appointments in India

Introduction

A lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court has submitted a review petition challenging the Court’s recent May 20, 2025, verdict, which reinstated the requirement of a minimum of three years’ practice at the Bar to qualify for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment. The petitioner argues that the judgment contains clear errors necessitating re-examination. He further requests that enforcement of this requirement be deferred until 2027 to ensure that candidates from the 2023–25 academic cohorts—who prepared under the earlier rules—aren’t unfairly disadvantaged.

Main Submission: Postpone Enforcement to Safeguard Graduates

The petition underscores that an immediate implementation of the three-year practice criterion would unfairly disqualify a whole class of recent law graduates, violating the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and equal opportunity under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, Chandra Sen Yadav—represented by Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav—suggests that the requirement be deferred to the 2027 recruitment cycle, thereby allowing current cohorts to continue with previous eligibilities uninterrupted.

Context: The Supreme Court’s May 2025 Decision

On May 20, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, along with Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, restored the three-year practice mandate. The Court held that practical courtroom exposure gleaned over those years is indispensable for effective performance in judicial capacities—something law school and short training periods cannot fully provide.

Notably, the ruling excluded candidates from ongoing recruitments at the time of judgment but made the requisites applicable to all future recruitments.

Grounds for Challenge: Alleged Oversights & Discrimination

1. Ignoring Shetty Commission’s Recommendations

The review petition contends the Supreme Court overlooked input from the 1996 Shetty Commission, which had advised against mandatory practice. This Commission argued that internships and court visits embedded within the law curriculum already offered adequate courtroom exposure. It further recommended structured training for judicial recruits. The petition holds that the Court did not adequately weigh these expert recommendations.

2. Reliance on Selective Affidavits

According to the petition, the Court drew heavily from affidavits submitted by High Courts and State Governments advocating for reinstating the practice requirement, while largely ignoring those from Nagaland, Tripura, Punjab & Haryana HC, and Chhattisgarh—where the requirement was opposed.

3. Lack of Empirical Evidence

It is argued that the Court failed to substantiate its decision with empirical or statistical data demonstrating that fresh law graduates underperform in judicial roles. No analysis of the historical success of candidates who entered judicial service immediately after graduation was undertaken. Thus, relying on anecdotal viewpoints by the amicus curiae and Court-appointed counsel, the petitioner alleges, was insufficient for such a sweeping policy change.

4. Disparate Impact on Marginalized and Non‑Litigation Roles

The petition highlights that the blanket application of the rule would disproportionately impact candidates from economically weaker backgrounds or socially disadvantaged communities (SC/ST/OBC). It would also exclude graduates working in legal capacities outside court—such as corporate lawyers, those in government corporations or public sector units—despite their relevant experience.

5. Overreach of Judicial Power

Chandra Sen Yadav contends that, by unilaterally imposing a uniform practice requirement across all High Courts and states without legislative sanction or consultation, the Supreme Court exceeded its role under Article 141. The petitioner argues that the Court assumed a policy‑making role reserved for Parliament or state legislatures.

6. Infringement of Fundamental Right to Work

Although lawyers must meet a minimum eligibility under Article 233 for district judges (seven years) and even more for High Court and Supreme Court judges (10 years), the petitioner asserts that the sudden change without rational basis infringes Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees citizens the right to pursue any profession. The argument follows that denying entry to judicial roles without objective justification is arbitrary and thus unconstitutional.

Petitioners: Additional Review Petitions Filed

Beyond Chandra Sen Yadav, another review petition has been submitted by advocate Faguni Mittal, represented by Advocate-on-Record Farhat Jahan Rahmani. Both petitions present closely aligned legal and equitable grounds for challenging the Court’s order.

Background: Evolution of the Three-Year Practice Rule

In the landmark 1993 All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court mandated a minimum of three years’ practice for Civil Judge entry, citing concerns regarding the competence of fresh recruits lacking courtroom experience.

However, in 2002, the Court relaxed this stipulation in response to the Shetty Commission’s conclusions. Fresh law graduates were permitted to seek judicial positions, provided they completed a one- or preferably two-year induction training post-appointment.

For two decades, many High Courts, including Punjab & Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Uttarakhand, and others—notably excluding Sikkim and Chhattisgarh—lobbied to reintroduce a bar-practice prerequisite of two to three years, citing real-world courtroom readiness issues.

Supreme Court’s May 2025 Rationale

In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court’s bench concluded that inexperienced judges were ill-equipped to handle real-life matters—especially those involving personal liberty, property rights, and reputation—on day one. The Court emphasized that theoretical knowledge and short-term training cannot substitute for practical litigation experience and direct courtroom engagement.

Concerns were raised about superficial practice—such as merely signing on vakalatnamas without court appearances. The Court stressed the need for robust mechanisms, including certificates endorsed by Principal Judicial Officers or senior advocates, to verify genuine advocacy practice.

Additionally, while reinstating the practice rule, the Supreme Court permitted inclusion of time spent working as a law clerk in judicial chambers toward meeting the three-year criteria.

What the Review Petitions Seek

1. Review of the Supreme Court judgment – on the basis that it contains clear errors of law and fact.

2. Temporary stay or deferment – enforcing the rule only from the 2027 recruitment cycle onwards to protect current law graduates.

3. Consideration of overlooked data and inputs – specifically from Shetty Commission and dissenting High Courts.

4. Evaluation of discrimination versus legitimate purpose – considering the rule’s impact on marginalized groups, alternate legal careers, and fundamental rights.

Broader Legal and Policy Implications

This case highlights deep tensions in India’s judicial recruitment policy between ensuring judicial competence and upholding fairness to aspirants. On one hand, the Supreme Court seeks to protect judicial standards by prioritizing practical experience. On the other, critics argue that blanket prerequisites marginalize fresh talent, hinder upward mobility from disadvantaged backgrounds, and overstep judicial authority.

Next Steps and Timeline

• The review plea has been filed and is pending before the Supreme Court registry.

• Oral hearings will determine whether the Court finds grounds for review or decides to uphold its earlier judgment.

• The two‑year deferment call reflects a middle path potentially taken should the Court choose to balance existing graduate cohorts’ interests with judicial quality concerns.

• Subsequent recruitment cycles—especially those beginning from 2026–27—will be watched closely to see whether administrative or judicial modifications follow.

Conclusion

The latest review petition puts the Supreme Court’s three-year advocacy prerequisite back under scrutiny, arguing both procedural and constitutional flaws. If the Court accepts the petition, it could delay its own ruling or modify its scope, thereby impacting thousands of law graduates recently turned hopeful judicial aspirants.

Regardless of outcome, this litigation signals a continuing, unresolved national debate: Should practice at the Bar be mandatory to enter judicial service? And if so, what safeguards are necessary to ensure both judicial competence and equitable access?

Let me know if you’d like an even deeper dive—perhaps exploring statistics of fresh judges’ performance, training effectiveness data, or responses from specific High Courts. Happy to dig further!