3 Years Practice Judgement A Curse For The Aspirants Or A Boon To The Judicial System Of India?

Supreme Court Judgment — Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eligibility

Introduction

On the date of 20th May 2025, the Supreme Court of India under the bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Mr. Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran held that the aspiring students for the examination of civil judge (junior division) must go on a period of 3-years legal practice before appearing in the examinations. This verdict of the Supreme Court was directed to be amended as quickly as possible to all the High Courts of India.

After the judgment came, the debate was seen to be divided between the aspirants and the practicing advocates. Both parties gave their own personal opinions on the hurdles they were facing, and others shared their views on the judgment and issues they might face after the order was passed. In this blog, we are going to briefly discuss both opinions as well as the problems that might arise for some sections of the group. We will also talk about the necessity of the rule and the issues it might create for the desiring aspirants. At last, this report will sum up with the answer to the question that the title raises.

Supreme Court Judgement

In the case of All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court on 20th May 2025 held that:

• The aspiring students for the examination of civil judge must go on a period of 3-years of legal practice before appearing for the examination.
• In these 3 years the candidate has to work as a legal intern under a Senior Advocate who should have 10+ years of standing practice experience in the Supreme Court or the High Court. A certificate is also required to be issued for the same.
• The experience gained as a law clerk for 3 years under judges or judicial officers will also be taken into account, and for the same a certificate should be issued.
• The 3-year practice eligibility criteria will not apply to the ongoing selections. It will come into force from the next recruitment cycle of candidates.
• The date of experience for the period of 3 years will be counted from the date of provisional enrollment in the Bar Council of India.

Why was it necessary?

The Supreme Court in its findings expressed the importance of practical exposure, which was lacking among fresh law graduates. The newly appointed judges were inexperienced in courtroom proceedings, which is very necessary for dealing with day-to-day real-life matters.

Providing the right justice is a matter of significant importance which should not be held under ill-informed hands; otherwise it would lead to absence of quality justice for the people of our society. The restoration was necessary to ensure effective decision making, which seemed unsuccessful with newly qualified law graduates.

Even the one-year pre-service training was not considered sufficient for the post of civil judge, as it still cannot completely replace the experience gained when working on the ground with senior advocates and dealing with day-to-day real-life situations.

Concerns of the Aspirants

The ongoing recruitment cycle would not be affected, but candidates who have been preparing for years might face close unemployment. We all know the ground reality of advocates not even paying the convenience fee to interns.

For first-generation lawyers it becomes extremely difficult to survive without much financial support, leading to economic crises. The societal pressure of staying unemployed for years after graduating could also affect their mental health.

For some, income may not be the issue, but the concern arises of wasting their career years. Candidates feel there is no need for the 3-year practice rule to be implemented. One year of pre-service training is considered by them to be more than enough to apply theoretical knowledge as a civil judge. They argue it would be unjust to students who have been preparing for the examination for years.

We are all well aware of the conditions of women in our society, where many are still hardly allowed to study. Most of them are married off at early ages and others face constant family pressure to remain idle for so long, making them feel like a burden to the family. Ultimately, girl students may be forced to drop out even before appearing in the examinations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the 3-year practice judgment is a crucial step taken by the Supreme Court of India that is needed for the improvement of the judicial system to deliver equal and right justice that would benefit society overall. But it should also be kept in mind the hurdles and financial struggles that aspirants will face during the long period of three years.

Also, the demand for complete dismissal of the order might lead to growing inexperience in the judicial system. It is extremely important to address the issues law graduates face, especially when they are first-generation lawyers. Hence, considering both views, the judgment should be reviewed and neutralized somewhat by reducing the number of years of practice.

Reference:

• All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 1184, decided on 20-05-2025

Written By: Kanchan Karki, second year law student pursuing B.A.LL.B from Lloyd School of Law, Greater Noida.