The Supreme Court’s recent decision requiring a minimum of three years of practice at the Bar to apply for entry-level judicial positions like Civil Judge (Junior Division) has sparked a crucial debate. With all due respect to the judiciary, I believe this mandate is unfair, and out of step with modern public service norms.
Let’s consider a simple fact: IAS, IPS, IRS, IFS, and almost every other Group A civil service position does not require prior field experience. These roles involve decision-making, managing public resources, and interacting with citizens—yet fresh graduates are considered capable of being trained and molded.
So why this special gatekeeping for the judiciary?
If a candidate has successfully completed a 5-year integrated law program or an LLB after three years of graduation, passed the bar exam, and cleared a competitive judicial services examination, what more proof of capability do we need? Isn’t this insistence on court experience just another barrier—one that will disproportionately affect students from non-legal backgrounds or underprivileged communities?
Legal Education Has Evolved—But the System Hasn’t Caught Up
Today’s law students are not merely reading bare acts. They are being trained in moot courts, internships, clinical legal education, and simulated case environments that replicate the courtroom experience. Both five-year integrated BA LLB programs and three-year LLB courses now embed multiple layers of real-world exposure—whether through internships under judges, legal aid work, research projects, or clerkships with practicing advocates.
In fact, those who pursue the three-year LLB program usually already hold a prior undergraduate degree—be it in arts, commerce, or science. By the time they complete their LLB, they’ve already undergone six years of higher education. Adding another three-year mandatory practice requirement on top of this seems excessive and counterproductive, especially when no other government recruitment exam demands such extended qualification timelines.
Moreover, legal practice—especially in the early years—is not always accessible, equitable, or structured. Many juniors end up doing clerical tasks for senior advocates for years without any meaningful exposure to actual courtroom work.
The Recruitment Process Already Takes Years—Why Delay It Further?
Anyone who’s appeared for judicial service exams knows that the process is painfully long. From preliminary exams to mains and interviews, the entire recruitment cycle already takes 12 to 18 months in many states. Adding a mandatory three-year practice period only prolongs the process further.
By the time a young graduate becomes eligible, prepares for, and clears the exam, they are already in their late 20s or early 30s—often discouraged, financially strained, or pulled away into alternate careers.
Is this how we attract bright minds to the judiciary?
Post-Recruitment Training Exists—And It’s Effective
Judicial academies in India offer structured one-year training for selected candidates. During this period, new recruits are taught procedural law, court management, writing judgments, and even courtroom behavior.
If these academies are effective in training judges—and they are—then why insist on such long period of prior practice?
Suggestions, Not Rigid Barriers
- Optional One-Year Apprenticeship Program: Allow students to apprentice under judges or public prosecutors post-law school. Make it optional but offer added marks/weightage during recruitment.
- Offer Stipends: If we truly want to encourage practical experience, offer stipends to apprentices. Let law students choose practice out of interest—not compulsion.
- Reform the Judicial Training Academies: Equip them to simulate real-life courtroom challenges. Provide immersive, practical training rather than theoretical lectures.
- One Year of Practice as Sufficient: Rather than mandating three years, the system should acknowledge that even one full year of genuine legal practice—if supervised and documented properly—can provide adequate courtroom exposure and build the foundational skills necessary for junior judicial roles.
Judges are not born in courtrooms—they are made through good education, integrity, and training. A mandatory three-year practice requirement might sound like it ensures quality, but in reality, it creates barriers for first-generation lawyers, women, and students from rural or marginalized backgrounds. The judiciary needs to broaden access, not narrow it. Let’s not confuse elitism with experience.
These are my personal views based on academic experience, peer observations, and ongoing discussions in legal education and judicial reform.