Background & Supreme Court Judgment
- On May 20, 2025, a three-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai reinstated the mandatory 3 years of legal practice to be eligible for the subordinate judicial services examination.
- The Court relied largely on the majority opinion of High Courts favoring the three-year rule but did not present empirical data proving the ‘lower quality’ of fresh law graduates.
- The decision marks a return to a previously contested rule, reversing the 2002 Supreme Court ruling that had scrapped this requirement.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Historical Context
- 1958 Law Commission Report (14th LCI):
- Recommended 3-5 years of practice for state judicial service eligibility.
- For All India Judicial Service (AIJS), no prior experience was required; practical skills to be developed through training.
- 1992 All India Judges’ Association case:
- Supported AIJS recommendations; allowed fresh graduates for central-level judicial services.
- 1993 Review:
- Emphasized 3 years’ practice essential for lower judiciary due to judicial responsibilities involving life, liberty, and property.
- 1996 Justice Shetty Commission:
- Found States mostly complied with the 3-year rule, some with even longer experience requirements.
- Highlighted delay in recruitment ages (27-30 years) because of the rule.
- 2002 Supreme Court decision:
- Abolished the 3-year rule citing failure to attract the best talent; bright graduates found judicial service unattractive after 3 years of practice.
Rationale for the Rule
- Supreme Court believes:
- Practical experience helps judges handle courtroom decorum, complex procedures, and diverse stakeholder perspectives.
- Maturity, empathy, and patience improve with experience.
- Concerns about lack of training or real-world practice in fresh graduates entering judicial services directly.
Challenges & Criticism of the 3-Year Rule
Talent Drain
- NLU graduates prefer high-paying corporate jobs over low-paid, slow judicial services.
- High education costs (₹12-40 lakh) and loans deter candidates from waiting for judicial entry
Economic & Social Barriers
- Financially weaker groups (SC/ST/OBC) need early income, can’t afford delayed careers.
- Junior lawyers earn low stipends (~₹15,000-20,000), making 3 years’ practice financially tough.
Impact on Women
- Experience requirements hinder women facing maternity/career breaks.
- Women constitute 38% of district judiciary and excel in exams (e.g., Bihar).
Age & Eligibility Mismatch
- Exams require 5-6 years education + 3 years practice, making candidates older and vulnerable.
- Irregular exam schedules cause delays and uncertainty.
Practical Disconnection
- Candidates want judicial service but don’t see legal practice as viable.
- States struggle to fill higher judiciary posts due to poor exam results.
Alternative Proposals & Recommendations
Enhance Training, Don’t Restrict Entry
- Recruit fresh graduates with extended training/probation (2+ years).
- Attach trainees to senior judges/lawyers for practical experience.
Examination Reform
- Replacerotelearning with scenario-based questions.
- Emphasize judgment writing and practical skills.
Attract Young Talent
- Offer better career prospects and financial incentives.
- Hold frequent judicial exams to shorten waiting times.
Balanced Approach
- Blend academic excellence with rigorous on-the-job training instead of mandatory prior experience.
