The 3-Year Rule and India’s Judiciary Reform: A Balanced Perspective

The Supreme Court’s latest verdict on judicial appointments has stirred up more than just the legal community; it's made waves among students, practitioners, and anyone with a stake in the future of India’s courts. With its ruling on May 20, 2025, the Court has brought back a long-disputed requirement: three years of legal practice before one can appear for the civil judge (junior division) examination.

The decision, while not shocking, is weighty. It revisits an old question that’s never really been settled: should a judge first be a lawyer? For those who see the judiciary as the most sacred part of the justice system, the answer may seem obvious. But for a country trying to modernise its legal institutions and attract fresh talent, the matter isn’t quite so black and white.

A traditional Indian courtroom setting symbolizing judiciary reform, with a gavel and sign prominently displayed in front of the judge’s bench and the Indian national flag.

Where This All Comes From: A Deeper Look At The Judiciary Reform

This debate over judicial eligibility is far from new. The idea that a judge should first be a practicing lawyer dates back to the 1950s. The 14th Law Commission Report of 1958 recommended that candidates have three to five years of experience at the Bar before they could be considered for the bench. The reasoning was straightforward: judges who have practiced law understand the nuances of the legal system better. They have witnessed courtroom dynamics firsthand, seen how arguments unfold, and observed the real struggles and triumphs of litigants- lessons that cannot be learned from textbooks alone.

Yet, even then, there was another perspective. The same Law Commission also proposed the creation of an All India Judicial Services (AIJS) examination- a national-level test aimed at identifying talented young law graduates and grooming them into judges through rigorous training after selection. This was not about lowering standards but about building quality from the ground up.

The Supreme Court’s stance on this issue has evolved over the years. Before 2002, most States required candidates to have a minimum of three years’ practice as advocates to qualify for judicial service. However, in the landmark case All India Judges Association vs Union of India (2002), the Court abolished this requirement, allowing fresh law graduates to directly apply for Munsiff-Magistrate posts without prior practical experience. This decision reflected recommendations from the Shetty Commission, which argued that the three-year rule deterred bright young talent from entering the judiciary.

For nearly two decades after 2002, this approach led to a steady influx of fresh law graduates into the judicial service, marking a significant shift in recruitment practices. But now, in 2025, the Supreme Court has reversed course once more, reinstating the three-year practice rule and sparking renewed debate on how best to balance experience with opportunity in building India’s judiciary.

Notably, the Supreme Court emphasized that this requirement will apply prospectively and will not have retrospective application. In other words, any judicial recruitment process already initiated or notified by High Courts before May 20, 2025, will remain unaffected by the new rule.

The Court’s Thinking This Time

The Bench-led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices A.G. Masih and K. Vinod Chandran concurring - didn’t dress up its logic. The core message was clear: theory isn't enough. A judge needs more than knowledge of the law; they need a sense of how it operates in real life.

Law schools, the Court noted, are good at laying the groundwork. They teach you what a bail application is. But they can’t show you what it feels like to hear one when the accused is pleading for their freedom, or when an advocate’s argument derails under pressure. They can’t teach how to maintain control in a packed courtroom or how to spot manipulation wrapped in legalese.

And these aren’t minor things. They're central to being an effective judge.

The Court also leaned on feedback from various High Courts and the Bar Council of India. Many had reported worrying trends. Newly appointed judges, though academically sharp, were struggling in real-world situations- trial management, order drafting, or even maintaining courtroom authority. This wasn’t about incompetence. It was about underexposure.

This highlights the critical need for Judiciary reform that goes beyond academic training, focusing on practical experience to prepare judges for the complexities of real courtroom proceedings.

But Isn’t There a Catch?

Of course there is. On paper, three years of practice sounds like a decent way to filter for maturity. But in practice, it raises legitimate concerns.

First, it could delay and discourage genuine talent. Fresh law graduates particularly those coming out of rigorous five-year courses are often idealistic and motivated to serve. Making them wait three more years before they can even try for the judiciary risks turning them away. For many, the delay isn’t just inconvenient, it's unaffordable.

Litigation at the entry level doesn’t pay well. It never has. A young law graduate with student loans or family obligations might simply not have the luxury to spend three years building courtroom experience, especially when civil services or corporate law offer faster, more lucrative, and more predictable career paths. This means the rule could unintentionally favour the economically privileged.

Then there’s the question of enforcement. The Court did address concerns that candidates might just enroll with the Bar Council and sit idle for three years to satisfy the requirement. It insisted on proper verification- a certificate from a senior advocate, confirmed by a judicial officer. Still, in a country where paperwork is often gamed, enforcement will be key.

On the positive side, the Court wisely allowed for time spent as a law clerk to count toward the requirement. That’s a much-needed nuance. Law clerks are often deeply involved in legal research, drafting, and case preparation. Their exposure, while different from that of an advocate, is no less valuable.

So Who Wins and Who Loses?

There’s no clean answer. Supporters of the rule argue that the judiciary isn’t the place to learn how to be a lawyer, it's the place to apply what you’ve learned. They see the rule as a guardrail against immaturity, a way to ensure that those deciding legal fates have stood in the shoes of those who argue them.

Critics argue that this is a short-sighted way of achieving quality. Instead of blocking fresh graduates, why not improve training? If a candidate is bright, motivated, and selected through a tough exam, couldn’t a solid post-selection training program give them what three years in the trenches would?

They’re not wrong either.

What Could Actually Work Better?

The real solution might lie somewhere in between. Yes, courtroom experience is valuable, but making it mandatory across the board might be too blunt an instrument. Instead, judicial academies could revamp their training programs to mimic real-world exposure. Use scenario-based learning. Make courtroom simulation a core part of training. Partner junior judges with experienced mentors. That way, you keep the door open for bright graduates while still ensuring they’re ready.

Additionally, there’s a need to reform the exams themselves. Right now, many judicial service exams rely heavily on rote learning. What if, instead, we focused on judgment writing, logical reasoning, and ethics? Those are the qualities that make a good judge, not just memory.

In the End, What Does This Ruling Tell Us?

It tells us that the judiciary is concerned- not just about filling posts, but about filling them wisely. That’s a good sign. But it also tells us that the system still prefers certainty over creativity. Rather than build new pipelines, it’s reinforcing old gates.

Whether this decision strengthens the judiciary in the long run will depend not on the rule alone, but on how well we support candidates navigating it. If the system can find ways to help deserving students regardless of background - gain that real-world experience, then maybe this return to tradition will lead to something genuinely better.

But if we simply throw them into an underpaid, unstructured waiting room for three years, then we may end up losing more talent than we keep.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now