Judges play a crucial role in shaping the legal framework of society. Their interpretations of the law, through the cases they adjudicate and the precedents they establish, often drive legislative reforms, policy changes, and social progress. Their work is not merely about resolving disputes but also about interpreting the law in a manner that reflects justice, fairness, and the evolving needs of the public. As such, the knowledge, competence, and experience of judges directly influence the quality of justice delivered in a democratic society. In a landmark judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the long-debated issue of eligibility criteria for appearing in judicial service examinations. The Court upheld the requirement that candidates must possess at least three years of legal practice experience before being eligible to take the judicial services exam for entry-level judge positions. This significant ruling overturns the 2002 decision in the All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India case, which had previously allowed fresh law graduates to appear for judicial exams immediately upon completing their degrees.
The 2025 decision has sparked wide-ranging debates across the legal community. While some have hailed the ruling as a step toward enhancing the quality of the judiciary, others view it as a setback for thousands of aspiring candidates, especially recent law graduates. The Court emphasized that judicial responsibilities demand more than academic qualifications. The role of a judge is not confined to court hours; it requires intensive preparation, legal research, writing judgments, and a thorough understanding of complex legal principles. Therefore, real-world experience in legal practice is seen as essential for developing the skills and temperament needed for the judicial role.
The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, A.G. Masih, and Vinod Chandran. They unanimously agreed that the foundation of a competent judge is laid through engagement in actual legal practice and exposure to the realities of courtrooms. They further emphasized that mere theoretical knowledge gained from textbooks and law classrooms cannot substitute the insights developed through practical litigation work. The Court’s decision prescribed that the three-year experience requirement would begin from the date of provisional enrollment with a State Bar Council, and not from the date a candidate clears the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). This clarification matters significantly, as it defines the official starting point for calculating eligibility. Aspirants are also required to submit a certificate of practice issued or verified by a senior lawyer with at least ten years of practice experience. However, this clause has also raised concerns about the misuse of certification and the potential for candidates to fulfill formalities without genuinely engaging in practice.
Critics argue that the judgment, although well-intentioned, imposes practical and social challenges — especially regarding the age barrier, which is more pressing for women due to prevailing societal expectations around marriage and career timelines. The delay in eligibility forces many to reconsider their judicial aspirations. Moreover, the early years of litigation are often financially unrewarding. Many junior lawyers are unpaid or are paid nominal stipends that barely cover basic expenses. This reality discourages many economically weaker students from continuing in litigation or even considering it as a viable pathway to the judiciary. The Court stated that courtroom etiquette, professional ethics, and familiarity with court procedure are not merely academic concepts but are best learned through firsthand experience. Practicing in court enables aspirants to observe and understand the complexities of litigation, learn how to interact with clients and seniors, draft pleadings, and respond to real-time legal challenges. Such experiences, the Court argued, prepare judges to empathize with lawyers appearing before them and contribute to a more respectful and productive bar-bench relationship.
Nonetheless, several legal scholars and education experts have suggested that rather than imposing rigid entry barriers based on practice duration, the judiciary could focus on developing intensive post-recruitment training programs for judicial officers. For instance, in civil services, aspirants are allowed to appear for exams without field experience, but once selected, they undergo rigorous training at institutions such as the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. Similarly, specialized training academies for judges — covering topics like court procedure, judicial ethics, judgment writing, and legal research — could be instituted or strengthened. This training-based model would not only maintain inclusivity but also ensure preparedness. Judiciary training academies already exist in various states, but their scope and effectiveness can be vastly improved. Enhancing training quality could address the Court’s concerns about preparedness without disqualifying fresh graduates or forcing them into three years of potentially unproductive litigation.
Furthermore, the ruling impacts the ongoing crisis of judicial vacancies in the country. India’s courts are already overburdened with millions of pending cases, and the slow pace of recruitment exacerbates the problem. If aspirants are made to wait three years before even becoming eligible, the recruitment cycle will inevitably slow down further. With the retirement rate of judges steadily increasing, this could lead to a more serious shortage of judicial officers in the coming years. Another angle to consider is the mismatch between the goals of legal education and the demands of legal practice. Law school often focus on doctrinal learning, case laws, and conceptual clarity. However, they offer limited exposure to real courtroom dynamics. The gap between classroom knowledge and professional practice can be bridged through legal clinics, internships, moot courts, and stronger practical training during the law school years. This would allow law graduates to be better prepared for both litigation and judicial roles from the outset, without having to wait three additional years.
The Supreme Court also directed all state governments and high courts to amend their service rules and recruitment regulations in accordance with the revised eligibility criteria. However, to ensure fairness, the Court clarified that ongoing recruitment processes would not be affected, allowing current aspirants one final opportunity to appear under the old system. This transitional safeguard was welcomed as a temporary relief to thousands of students who were preparing based on the previous eligibility norms. Supporters of the judgment argue that it will lead to a more competent and mature judiciary in the long run. They believe that exposure to real legal issues, handling clients, appearing before different benches, and dealing with procedural hurdles enriches a lawyer’s understanding, making them more effective when they don the judge’s robe. According to them, the decision will elevate the standards of judicial decision-making, reduce errors, and enhance public trust in the judicial system. However, the opposing viewpoint emphasizes that the decision may discourage bright young minds from entering the judiciary and disproportionately affect women and financially weaker aspirants. Forcing all candidates into litigation — especially when some may be more inclined toward research, teaching, or judicial roles — can seem restrictive and one-size-fits-all.
In conclusion, the 2025 judgment by the Supreme Court marks a major shift in the way India envisions the training and selection of its judges. While the intent behind the ruling is commendable — aiming to strengthen the judiciary with more experienced and practically trained individuals — its implementation must be nuanced and flexible. Alternatives such as post-recruitment judicial training, better law school exposure to practical learning, and more inclusive eligibility frameworks may help balance quality with accessibility. The future impact of this decision will depend not just on the ruling itself, but on how sensitively and effectively it is put into practice.
Author: Samiya Sheikh
Juris Centre 