The recent judgment handed down by the Supreme Court, requiring all aspirants who wish to become Civil Judges (Junior Division) to have at least three years’ court practice, is a huge and radical change in the policy of judicial recruitment in India. This landmark judgment, handed down in the year 2025, has effectively reversed the earlier precedent established by the Court in 2002[1], which had permitted fresh law graduates to be eligible to sit for judicial service examinations without any prior experience. The crux of this judgment is to place greater emphasis on the all-important value of acquiring actual hands-on experience in the courtroom over depending on mere academic merit alone, and thus to introduce a new eligibility criterion that is hoped to enhance the quality and calibre of the newly entering judicial officers. But for all the potential advantages of this reform, there are very serious concerns that are raised in terms of issues of access and inclusion, and in particular with respect to new law graduates, those aspirant candidates from economically weaker sections, and those belonging to marginalized groups. This article undertakes a detailed examination of the rationale behind this decision, the possible implications, and the possible impact that this revolutionary change is likely to have, and also an assessment of whether it ultimately turns out to be a boon or a bane for the Indian Judiciary as a whole.

JUDICIAL RECRUITMENT IN INDIA: BACKGROUND & EVOLUTION

The Indian method of appointing judges has a long history and usually occurs through two different channels. The first one is by direct recruitment, which is accomplished through public competitive examinations for the Junior Division Judicial posts of Civil Judges alone. The second one is by promotion, whereby meritorious candidates are chosen from practicing advocates and junior judicial officers to fill higher judicial posts. Under Article 233(2) of the Indian Constitution[2], it is clearly stipulated that a person, for appointment as a District Judge, can become eligible only if he has already served as an advocate or pleader for a period of not less than seven years. It must be noted, however, that for the cadre at the initial level, namely, Civil Judges in the Junior Division, there was no mandatory requirement of professional experience when the system was originally framed.

In the path-breaking case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India[3], the Supreme Court made a major breakthrough when it declared the erstwhile requirements of possessing a minimum three years’ experience in the bar as a prerequisite for candidates of the judiciary as invalid. This path-breaking judgment in a way opened the gates for law graduates so that they could enter the prestigious judicial service in a direct manner by appearing in relevant examinations. The rationale behind this forward-looking step was to bring in new legal talent and thus increase the overall size of the recruitment pool for the judiciary.

But after two decades of checkered experience and divergent feedback, the Court took advantage of the opportunity to reconsider its position in the seminal case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India[4]. In the important judgment, the Court upheld and endorsed the argument that possessing practical experience in litigation is necessarily essential for the sake of ensuring effective and sound working in the judiciary.

THE 2025 JUDGMENT: KEY PRINCIPLES & OBSERVATIONS

In its judgment delivered in the year 2025, the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear and categorically held that candidates who are contending for appointments as Civil Judges in the Junior Division will possess a minimum of three years of practical experience. The experience can be gained either by working as an advocate in a legal capacity or as a law clerk in a legal environment. The Court explained its rationale by stating that the gain of firsthand experience in litigation goes a long way towards the development of qualities like legal skills, maturity, procedural awareness, and ethical judgment- qualities which are absolutely necessary and indispensable for candidates who are appointed as judicial officers.

The opinion delivered by the Court highlighted and emphasized several crucial observations that are noteworthy:

• Legal education, however rigorous and detailed it may be, just cannot replace the valuable and non-replaceable experience of being directly involved in real-time situations with legal proceedings, learning the nuances of courtroom decorum, and acquiring winning litigation skills.
• Increased intricacy of work done by judicial specialists necessitates some level of on-the-job experience. This on-the-job experience is necessary to guarantee the integrity and effectiveness of the judiciary system as a whole.
• Judges are the most prominent representatives of the administration of justice, especially in society at the grass roots level; hence, they must be eminently capable and mature, which are acquired after decades of experience in their field.

RATIONALE FOR THE REFORM: WHY EXPERIENCE MATTERS

1. Professional Maturity:

Advocacy experience allows the candidates to learn valuable skills such as legal analysis, client handling, and familiarity with court procedures.

• Judicial Confidence:

Distinguished judges are far better equipped to deal with tough and complex legal arguments that could occur in cases, and they will be more likely to be able to exercise their power in an effective manner in courtroom setting.

• Public Trust:

A judiciary consisting of judges who have a deep appreciation for the difficulties and intricacies encountered by the litigants, as well as the intricacies and demands inherent in the litigation process, is highly likely to have a heightened level of public trust and credibility.

• Efficacy in Training:

Judicial academies invest a lot of resources and funds in the thorough training of newly inducted members entering the profession. Nevertheless, experienced candidates in the same types of jobs will require less amount of basic training and, therefore, will most likely settle into their jobs faster and more smoothly.

CONCERNS & CRITIQUES: THE COST OF EXPERIENCE

Notwithstanding the fact that it came with a sound intention, the ruling has been condemned on a number of fronts:

1. Access and Equity:

Those who are from poor backgrounds may be discouraged and not inclined to seek a career within the judiciary. The cause for this fear usually lies in the extreme financial hardships that are normally part of the initial stages of legal practice, which can present huge barriers to entry into this noble profession.

• Gender imbalances:

A large number of women who graduate from law school face a lot of societal and family challenges that deter them from pursuing full-time litigation. These challenges might have a direct contribution to the gender balance in the judiciary system.

• Regional Disparities:

Career opportunities in legal practice are disproportionally weighted in urban locations, and hence pose a major challenge for candidates from rural and semi-urban locations to gain meaningful experience in the profession.

• Questionable Quality of Practice:

Not every advocate acquires significant courtroom experience within three years; others continue to be in clerical or peripheral positions.

IMPLEMENTATION & TRANSTITIONAL HURDLES

The request also brings forth a chain of logistical and administrative issues to be addressed:

1. Recruitment Disruption:

The ongoing recruitment phases for judicial services in several states are likely to be postponed due to the necessary changes being made in the existing service rules.

• Verification Burden:

Extensive efforts should be made by the High Courts and Bar Councils to establish and implement effective mechanisms to verify genuineness as well as quality of the claimed experience by the individuals.

• Effect on Aspirants:

Law graduates who are already preparing for judicial exams are hit with sudden policy changes, which compel them to rethink their career calendars.

• Judicial Shortage:

India is already facing a critical backlog in subordinate courts; tightened eligibility requirements can reduce the number of recruits.

COMPARATIVE GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

The requirement of expertise in the profession prior to appointment as a judge is not new in India:

1. United Kingdom:

Judicial appointments typically require several years of experience as a barrister or solicitor.

• United States:

They are either elected or appointed after decades of public service or private practice.

• Canada:

Judicial candidates usually have a decade or more of practicing attorney experience.

India’s change thus conforms to global standards, ushering in a professional quality of judiciary that combines merit with maturity.

IMPACT ON LEGAL EDUCATION & CAREER PLANNING

The new introduced reform requires a paradigm change in how law students understand and prepare for their professional future:

1. Reforming Legal Education:

The law schools will have to offer greater emphasis on clinical legal educations, internships, and courtroom experience.

• Re-alignment of Aspirations:

The students who aspire to become members of the judiciary need to first prepare themselves to pass the Bar examination. The new requirements is likely to add 3 to 5 years to their journey to become a member of the judiciary.

• Coaching Industry Reset:

The booming judicial coaching business will have to transform its services to include post-practice preparation models.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BALANCED APPROACH

In order to make sure that the reform improves the judiciary without locking out potential candidates, the following is suggested:

1. Organised Clerkship Programs:

Fellowships or clerkships administered by the court can offer relevant experience with financial assistance.

• Bar Entry Support:

The Government or Bar Councils must implement stipends or support programs funded by future advocates to cushion early-career hardships.

• Transparent Experience Verification:

To create a single register of advocates with consistent reporting of practice history.

• Academic-Professional Bridging:

The law schools need to have bar readiness programs and mentorship programs.

• Equity Safeguards:

The reservation policies or relaxation in eligibility for certain communities can promote inclusive representation.

• Public Awareness and Guidance:

Judicial services and state law commissions can offer open communication to make aspirants aware of the new requirements.

CONCLUSION

Supreme Court’s 2025 decision requiring a minimum of three years’ experience of litigation as a pre-requisite for aspiring candidates to the offices of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is a milestone in the annals of judicial appointments in India. It is a sensible and vision-oriented acknowledgement of the reality that adjudications is not an armchair activity but also of prudence, sensibility, and procedural acumen.

While the intention is sincere, the well-meaning rule without supportive structures and inclusive policies can increase existing inequalities and discourage deserving candidates from entering judicial careers. The test is to effect the reform with diplomacy, foresight, and a determination to harmonize excellence and equity.

If executed well, this ruling holds the promise of enhancing India’s judiciary’s capacity and stature. Otherwise, it will merely create yet another obstacle to an already access-laden system. The bar before the bench, therefore, need not be merely viewed as a barrier, but as a road- a road that is open, accessible, and in line with the nation’s constitutional aspirations.

---

[1] All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 233, cl. 2

[3] ibid

[4] All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 735

---

Author: Bhumika Jain

---