Syed Adnan Hashmi
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in the case of All India Judges Association vs. Union of India, has mandated a minimum of three years of experience at the Bar before entering the judicial services (Subordinate Judiciary). The Court directed all states and High Courts to amend their rules for the appointment of judges in the subordinate judiciary accordingly.
The judgment, which had been reserved in January 2025 by a three-member bench, was delivered in May 2025 by a two-member bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine Masih. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the judgment will have prospective effect — meaning it will not affect recruitment processes that have already been notified.
The issue of mandatory three-year practice before joining the judiciary has been debated since 1958, when the 14th Law Commission Report recommended 3–5 years of minimum experience for lawyers before assuming judicial roles.
In 1992, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in favor of the three-year practice requirement. However, this decision was overturned in a 1993 review petition. Later, in 2002, by accepting the Shetty Commission Report of 1996, the Supreme Court ruled against the need for mandatory experience before entering the Subordinate Judiciary.
Now, nearly two decades later, the Supreme Court has reinstated the requirement through its May 2025 judgment.
The Supreme Court delivered this judgment with the intent that firsthand courtroom experience is essential for anyone entering the subordinate judicial services. However, it appears that the Court may have overlooked the ground realities and the significant implications this judgment will have on thousands of aspiring law students.
Firstly, the requirement of three years of practice — after completing an already lengthy five-year law degree — is likely to deter early entrants into the judicial services. This, in turn, could lead to a reduced pool of applicants and increase the burden on the already strained Subordinate Judiciary, which is currently grappling with a backlog of nearly 52 million cases.
Secondly, this judgment may disproportionately affect law students from the Economically Weaker Sections. These students often seek early employment to support their families and establish their careers. Imposing an additional three-year barrier may force many of them to pursue alternative career paths, as surviving the early years of litigation without financial stability is particularly difficult.
Moreover, students from National Law Universities (NLUs), where many graduates gravitate towards corporate careers, may be further disincentivized from joining the judiciary. The added delay of three years could significantly reduce the number of NLU graduates aspiring to judicial service.
Importantly, this rule will have a disproportionately negative impact on female law graduates. According to the 2023 State of the Judiciary report by the Centre for Research & Planning, Supreme Court of India, women constituted over 50% of selected candidates for Civil Judge posts in 14 out of 16 states examined. However, under the new rule, no fresh graduate can join the judiciary without prior experience. Given the challenging work conditions in the legal profession — especially for women — sustaining an additional three years in litigation may prove too difficult for many.
I sincerely hope that the Supreme Court of India considers a review petition of its judgment mandating prior legal experience before entering the Subordinate Judicial Service. This decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences — not only for the careers of thousands of law graduates but also for the future of judicial recruitment in India. It is imperative that the judiciary balances professional expectations with social realities and the aspirations of young legal minds.
