Is the three-year practice mandate for judicial service welcome?

Is this a welcome reform?

Bharat Chugh: I do not believe that three years of practice at the Bar significantly enhances a candidate’s legal acumen or preparedness for judicial office. Such a brief tenure is unlikely to provide any meaningful exposure to the nuances and complexities of legal practice. The verdict also appears unsupported by empirical evidence and does little to address the systemic concerns it purports to resolve.

Prashant Reddy: I believe that it is a step in the right direction. However, it may still be insufficient. Ideally, candidates should get more courtroom experience before assuming judicial office. The near-consensus among the High Courts offers compelling empirical evidence to this effect. Barring two, all 23 High Courts have opined that the recruitment of young law graduates into the judicial service has yielded unsatisfactory outcomes. Moreover, in 2021, the Bar Council of India issued a scathing statement asserting that judges who do not have practical experience at the Bar were “found to be incapable and inept in handling matters”.

Is it more effective to focus on strengthening the judicial training programmes instead?

Prashant Reddy: Judicial academies are under-equipped to provide meaningful training to newly appointed judges. More importantly, it is difficult to impart real-world skills within a classroom setting. It would require an exceptionally low faculty-to-trainee ratio to offer the kind of individual feedback and mentorship that these skills demand. Moreover, what cannot be taught in any institutional setting are lived experiences. There is a vast difference in how a recent law graduate perceives the world compared to someone in their mid-30s or 40s. Over time, personal and professional experiences foster a degree of emotional maturity that is essential for judicial decision-making. This point was highlighted in the Uttarakhand High Court’s feedback to the Supreme Court committee examining the issue.

Bharat Chugh: I agree that a deeper understanding of life is essential to becoming a capable judge and that such understanding cannot be cultivated solely within the confines of a one-year judicial training programme. However, if we expect judges to enter the system with substantial life and professional experience, we must make the judicial service far more attractive than it is. By the time a candidate is appointed as a junior civil judge or first-class magistrate, they are likely to be around 29-30 years old. Given the working conditions and limited incentives, this is hardly an appealing career path, especially when they could instead qualify directly for the District Judge cadre by the age of 33 or 35.

How can we ensure the practice requirement isn’t reduced to a mere formality?

Bharat Chugh: As you rightly said, it risks becoming a mere formality. The verdict does not lay down any concrete parameters to assess such experience. This not only undermines the purpose of such certification but also renders the process exclusionary, placing at a disadvantage those who lack mentorship or access to established professionals in the field. If the assessment is to be documentation-based, a more structured and transparent system is essential. For instance, a digital diary could be instituted, requiring candidates to upload verifiable records, such as order sheets and details of court appearances, onto a secure portal. The verdict also does not provide clarity on how candidates working in non-litigating roles, such as those employed by public sector undertakings or in-house legal departments, are to be assessed.

Prashant Reddy: I agree with Bharat. It is a fundamentally flawed and poorly conceived reform. Had the process been more democratic, with a public consultation mechanism in place, stakeholders could have pointed out the numerous practical challenges associated with implementing such a measure. The disconnect becomes even more evident when one considers the realities of legal practice in India. In their formative years, most junior advocates are relegated to peripheral tasks, such as seeking adjournments, rather than engaging in substantive litigation. To regard such limited exposure as meaningful courtroom experience is deeply problematic.

Will it deter top talent from joining the judiciary, particularly candidates from marginalised or impoverished backgrounds?

Bharat Chugh: Yes. Previously, when such a requirement was absent, the judicial service offered a level playing field and a meaningful route to public service for many law graduates, particularly those from lesser-known law schools. Moreover, those who discover an aptitude for litigation may be reluctant to abandon their practice to start over as entry-level civil judges or magistrates in their late 20s.

It is equally important to note that persistent delays and procedural lapses in the conduct of judicial service exams deter serious candidates. Without systemic reforms, even if these exams attract a large number of applicants, the judiciary risks losing individuals best equipped to strengthen and transform the institution.

Prashant Reddy: As the qualifying age for the exam increases, the pool of applicants is likely to shrink. Offering the same pay and incentives to candidates in their late 20s as were previously offered to those in their early 20s will inevitably diminish the exam’s appeal. That said, given the intense competition and limited opportunities in litigation, there will always be law graduates interested in joining the judicial service. However, the more pressing question is whether the exam attracts the most capable candidates. In my view, the current exam format, even with the addition of an interview stage, does not succeed in drawing the best talent.

The India Justice Report shows that the proportion of women judges in the district judiciary rose from 30% in 2017 to 38.3% in 2025. Could the practice requirement disproportionately impact women?

Prashant Reddy: Certainly. For many women, the lack of financial resources or familial support makes it difficult to sustain three years of litigation. In contrast, a career in the judiciary offers greater financial stability and social legitimacy. That said, most States have reservations for women in the district judiciary, which will help preserve its appeal as a viable career option. However, it is vital to recognise that the composition of the Bench is intrinsically tied to the diversity of the Bar. A judiciary that lacks gender representation often mirrors broader systemic exclusions within the legal profession.

Bharat Chugh: In recent years, notable strides have been made in enhancing gender representation within the district judiciary. Without this added hurdle, the progress might have reflected in the higher judiciary. Litigation presents many entry-level barriers for women; many encounter resistance from conservative families that are more supportive of careers in academia or corporate law. Moreover, increasing the presence of women on the Bench is not just a matter of representation, it also helps foster greater sensitivity within the legal system.

Is this an instance of ‘courtroom policymaking’? If so, should it be avoided?

Prashant Reddy: Absolutely. This is also a case of constitutional impropriety. Under Article 234 of the Constitution, the power to prescribe eligibility criteria for members of the district judiciary rests with the executive, in consultation with the State Public Service Commissions and the respective High Courts. The Supreme Court has no authority to appropriate these powers for itself. Yet, it has been doing so since the first All India Judges’ Association case in 1991.

Bharat Chugh: Before advocating a reform of this scale, it is essential to gather thorough and reliable data. For instance, are there more complaints or disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers without prior advocacy experience compared to those who have it? Is the system able to retain judicial officers over time? These are complex questions that require data-driven analysis — something the Court, with its limited jurisdiction and time-bound hearings, is not equipped to carry out effectively.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast